CAROLYN M. GARCIA vs. RICA MARIE S. THIO, GR. No.

154878

FACTS: Sometime in February 1995, respondent Rica Marie S. Thio received Irom petitioner
Carolyn M. Garcciaa crossed check in the amount oI $100,000.00 payable to the order oI
Marilou Santiago. ThereaIter, Carolyn received Irom Rica payments oI the sum due. In June
1995, Rica received another check in the amount oI P500,000.00 Irom Carolyn and payable to
the order oI Marilou. Payments were made by Rica representing interests. There was Iailure to
pay the principal amount hence a complaint Ior sum oI money with damages was Iiled by
Carolyn. Rica contended that she had no obligation to petitioner as it was Marilou who was
indebted as she was merely asked to deliver the checks to the latter and that the check payments
she issued were merely intended to accommodate Marilou. The RTC ruled in Iavor oI Carolyn
but the CA reversed on the ground that there was no contract between Rica and Carolyn as there
is nothing in the record that shows that respondent received money Irom petitioner and that the
checks received by respondent, being crossed, may not be encashed but only deposited in the
bank by the payee thereoI, that is, by Marilou Santiago herselI.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a contract oI loan between petitioner and respondent.

HELD: There Court ruled in the aIIirmative. A loan is a real contract, not consensual, and as
such is perIected only upon the delivery oI the object oI the contract.Art. 1934 oI the Civil Code
provides that 'an accepted promise to deliver something by way oI commodatum or simple loan
is binding upon the parties, but the commodatum or simple loan itselI shall not be perIected until
the delivery oI the object oI the contract. Upon delivery oI the object oI the contract oI loan (in
this case the money received by the debtor when the checks were encashed) the debtor acquires
ownership oI such money or loan proceeds and is bound to pay the creditor an equal amount.It is
undisputed that the checks were delivered to respondent. However, these checks were crossed
and payable not to the order oI respondent but to the order oI a certain Marilou Santiago. The
Supreme Court agrees with petitioner that delivery is the act by which the res or substance
thereoI is placed within the actual or constructive possession or control oI another.Although
respondent did not physically receive the proceeds oI the checks, these instruments were placed
in her control and possession under an arrangement whereby she actually re-lent the amounts to
Santiago.Hence, Rica is the debtor and not Marilou.