Tiburcio borrowed a cavan of rice from Tiburcia. Is the contract one of commodatum?

It depends on the purpose to which it is intended. According to the Civil Code, generally the
objects in commodatum are non-fungible things or non-consumable things since it is only a
contract of use with an understanding to retain the very same thing. However, a fungible
thing may likewise be an object of commodatum if it will be used for mere display only. Here,
if Tiburcio will only borrow the cavan of rice for mere display, and will not consume it, then,
there is a contract of commodatum.

Lito Akoh borrowed money from Akuh Din. There was no stipulation to pay interest.
After paying interest, Lito Akoh seeks to recover the amount thereof. Is Akuh Din
obliged to return the interest paid.

Yes. The Civil Code expressly states that where no interest is stipulated, then there should
be no payment of such. Thus, Lito Akoh can recover the interest he had paid since it was a
payment by mistake, or i.e. solutio indebiti. The rationale behind this is to prevent unjust
enrichment of one on the prejudice of another. Thus, Akuh Din is obliged to return the
interest he had received from Lito Akoh by mistake.

Bebe agreed to entrust to Beybi the former's jewelry and other personal property for
safekeeping for a certain period of time in consideration of the payment of the
payment by P5,000. Immediately, Bebe paid Baybi. Is there already a perfected
contract of deposit?

There is no perfected contract of deposit yet. A contract of deposit is a real contract, it is

perfected by the delivery of the subject matter. An express legal provision in the Civil Code
states that a deposit is constituted "from the moment a person receives a thing.” Here, since
there was no delivery yet of the subject matter, there is no perfected contract of deposit yet.

Asa, a depositary, died. Paasa, his heir, sold the thing deposited to Pinaasa, believing
it belonged to Asa. Does Paasa have any obligation to Umaasa, depositor?

Yes. The depositor’s heir who in good faith may have sold the thing which he did
not know was deposited, shall only be bound to return the price he may have
received or to assign his right of action against the buyer in case the price has not
been paid to him (CIVIL CODE, Art. 1991). Here, Paasa acted in good faith. Thus, Art.
1991 of the Civil Code applies.

The hotel-keeper posted a notice to the effect that it is not responsible for the articles
brought by guests. Mr. Yayamanin, a guest, lost his one-of-a-kind camera. An
investigation discloses that the camera was stolen by a person who entered the hotel
and opened the door with the use of a false key. Is the hotel-keeper liable?

Yes, the hotel-keeper is liable. Jurisprudence provides that hotel establishments cannot
escape liability by merely posting notices within the establishment exempting itself. The Civil
Code provides that the hotel is likewise liable for acts of strangers when no use of arms or
irresistible force were used by the latter. Thus, since no force was used by the stranger to
enter the hotel and the room, this shows negligence on the part of the hotel, and thus liable
for the loss of the camera, it being lost within the establishment. The hotel-keeper is
subsidiary liable.

D, debtor, C, creditor, and G, guarantor for D's debt of P50,000. D paid C P30,000.
Subsequently, G, without notifying D, being unaware of the payment, paid C P50,000.
G demands reimbursement from D who refuses. Decide.

G can validly claim from D the amount paid by him which is beneficial to D, which is
P20,000. According to the Civil Code, whenever the payment of a guarantor is made without
the debtor's knowledge or against the debtor's consent, the guarantor is entitled to
reimbursement of the amount which was beneficial to the debtor. In this case, out of the
P50,000 paid by G, only P20,000 was beneficial to D since D's remaining debt to C at time
of G's payment is only P20,000. Since D benefited from G's payment for the amount of
P20,000 only, then G can only demand reimbursement from D for the amount of P20,000.
This is without prejudice to G's right to claim reimbursement from C the amount of P30,000
under the principle of solutio indebiti or payment by mistake.

D, debtor, C, creditor, and E, F, and G, guarantors of the indebtedness of D in the

amount of P90,000. C releases E who is a very close friend of his from the guaranty. D
failed to pay. Can C recover P45,000 each from F and G? Explain.

If the release of E by C is made with F & G’s consent, then F and G will each be responsible
for P45,000. But if E is released without the consent of F and G, then F and G will each be
liable only for P30,000. They are benefited to the extent of P30,000, the share of E. This is in
accordance with Art 2078 of the Civil Code which states that: “A release made by the
creditor in favor of one of the guarantors, without the consent of the others, benefits all to the
extent of the share of the guarantor to whom it has been granted.”