BPI vs CA Credit Digest

BPI Investment Corporation

-vs-
CA
GR No. 133632, 15 February 2002
377 SCRA 117

FACTS
Frank Roa obtained a loan from Ayala Investment and Development
Corporation (AIDC), for the construction of his house. Said house and lot
were mortgaged to AIDC to secure the loan. Roa sold the properties to ALS
and Litonjua, the latter paid in cash and assumed the balance of Roas
indebtedness wit AIDC. AIDC was not willing to extend the old interest to
private respondents and proposed a grant of new loan of P500,000 with
higher interest to be applied to Roas debt, secured by the same property.
Private respondents executed a mortgage deed containing the stipulation.
The loan contract was signed on 31 March 1981 and was perfected on 13
September 1982, when the full loan was released to private respondents.

BPIIC, AIDCs predecessor, released to private respondents P7,146.87,

purporting to be what was left of their loan after full payment of Roas loan.
BPIIC filed for foreclosure proceedings on the ground that private
respondents failed to pay the mortgage indebtedness. Private respondents
maintained that they should not be made to pay amortization before the
actual release of the P500,000 loan. The suit was dismissed and affirmed by
the CA.

ISSUE
Whether or not a contract of loan is a consensual contract.

HELD
The Court held in the negative. A loan contract is not a consensual contract
but a real contract. It is perfected only upon delivery of the object of the
contract. A contract o loan involves a reciprocal obligation, wherein the
obligation or promise of each party is the consideration for that of the other;
it is a basic principle in reciprocal obligations that neither party incurs in
delay, if the other does not comply or is not ready to comply is a proper
manner with what is incumbent upon him
Saura Import & Export Co., Inc.
-vs-
DBP
GR No. L-24968, 27 April 972
44 SCRA 445

FACTS
Saura applied to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC), before its
conversion into DBP, for an industrial loan to be used for construction of factory
building, for payment of the balance of the purchase price of the jute machinery
and equipment and as additional working capital. In Resolution No.145, the loan
application was approved to be secured first by mortgage on the factory buildings,
the land site, and machinery and equipment to be installed.

The mortgage was registered and documents for the promissory note were
executed. The cancellation of the mortgage was requested to make way for the
registration of a mortgage contract over the same property in favor of Prudential
Bank and Trust Co., the latter having issued Saura letter of credit for the release of
the jute machinery. As security, Saura execute a trust receipt in favor of the
Prudential. For failure of Saura to pay said obligation, Prudential sued Saura.

After 9 years after the mortgage was cancelled, Saura sued RFc alleging failure to
comply with tits obligations to release the loan proceeds, thereby prevented it from
paying the obligation to Prudential Bank.

The trial court ruled in favor of Saura, ruling that there was a perfected contract
between the parties ad that the RFC was guilty of breach thereof.

ISSUE
Whether or not there was a perfected contract between the parties.

HELD
The Court held in the affirmative. Article 1934 provides: An accepted promise to
deliver something by way of commodatum or simple loan is binding upon the
parties, but the commodatum or simple loan itself shall not be perfected until
delivery of the object of the contract.

There was undoubtedly offer and acceptance in the case. When an application for a
loan of money was approved by resolution of the respondent corporation and the
responding mortgage was executed and registered, there arises a perfected
consensual contract.
 Eastern Shipping vs CA Credit Digest

Eastern Shipping vs CA
GR No. 97412, 12 July 1994
234 SCRA 78

FACTS
Two fiber drums were shipped owned by Eastern Shipping from Japan. The shipment as
insured with a marine policy. Upon arrival in Manila unto the custody of metro Port Service,
which excepted to one drum, said to be in bad order and which damage was unknown the
Mercantile Insurance Company. Allied Brokerage Corporation received the shipment from
Metro, one drum opened and without seal. Allied delivered the shipment to the consignees
warehouse. The latter excepted to one drum which contained spillages while the rest of the
contents was adulterated/fake. As consequence of the loss, the insurance company paid the
consignee, so that it became subrogated to all the rights of action of consignee against the
defendants Eastern Shipping, Metro Port and Allied Brokerage. The insurance company filed
before the trial court. The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff an ordered defendants to pay the
former with present legal interest of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint.
On appeal by defendants, the appellate court denied the same and affirmed in toto the decision of
the trial court.

ISSUE
(1) Whether the applicable rate of legal interest is 12% or 6%.

(2) Whether the payment of legal interest on the award for loss or damage is to be computed from
the time the complaint is filed from the date the decision appealed from is rendered.

HELD
(1) The Court held that the legal interest is 6% computed from the decision of the
court a quo. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an
interest on the amount of damaes awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the
rate of 6% per annum. No interest shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except
when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty.

When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and
executor, the rate of legal interest shall be 12% per annum from such finality until satisfaction,
this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of money.

The interest due shall be 12% PA to be computed fro default, J or EJD.

(2) From the date the judgment is made. Where the demand is established with
reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or
EJ but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made,
the interest shll begin to run only from the date of judgment of the court is made.
(3) The Court held that it should be computed from the decision rendered by the court a quo.
PEOPLE V. PUIG AND PORRAS
(Simple Loan)
Depositors who place their money with the bank are considered creditors of the bank. The bank acquires
ownership of the money deposited by its clients, making the money taken by respondents as belonging to
the bank.
The relationship between banks and depositors has been held to be that of creditor and debtor. Articles
1953 and 1980 of the New Civil Code, as appropriately pointed out by petitioner, provide as follows:
Article 1953. A person who receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing acquires the ownership
thereof, and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality.
Article 1980. (supra)
In summary, the Bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its clients; and the employees of the
Bank, who are entrusted with the possession of money of the Bank due to the confidence reposed in them,
occupy positions of confidence. The Informations, therefore, sufficiently allege all the essential elements
constituting the crime of Qualified Theft.