Chattels given cease to be the property of the obligor to be used according to his own will unless the

contract itself expressly provides for a special or specific use of the same. At all events the money, goods
or chattels the moment the contract is executed cease to be the roperty of the obligor.

Take Note:

Characteristic of a contract of loan

 Real contract
 Unilateral Contract
 Nominate contract
 Principal Contract
 Informal Contract
 Gratuitous Contract
 Onerous Contract

Judge M. Q:

In the case of Liwanag vs CA What was the contract entered into by the parties?

Ruling:

If there is no transfer of ownership it is not simple loan.

Therefore the person who receive the amount of money but there is no transfer of ownership would be
liable for estafa.

In simple loan or mutuum as contrasted to commodatum the borrower acquires ownership of the
money, goods or personal property borrowed, being the owner the borrower can dispose of the thing
borrowed and his act will not be considered misappropriation thereof thus no estafa is committed by a
person who refuses to pay his debt or deny its existence.

Judge M. Q:

Why is it that the Supreme Court nullified the extrajudicial foreclosure sale in the case of
PNB vs. Sps. Tajonera.

Why is it that the Supreme Court nullified or the Supreme Court ruled that the
extrajudicial foreclosure of the property enunciated or contracted by PNB with respect to properties
of spouses Edwardo and Maria Tajonera is premature.

In what manner that he was not able to fulfill the agreement?

Ruling:

Yes. The bank failed to release the proceeds or the object of the contract of loan which was
approved by it and for which reason the properties of the spouses were mortgage.
 So that is also in relation to perfected consensual contract of a promise to enter into a contract
of loan.

In that case the PNB would also be liable for damages for its failure to release the object of a
contract of loan.

Article 1980 of the Civil Code

“Fix savings and foreign deposits of money in bank and similar institutions shall be govern by the
provisions concerning simple loan.”

People of the Philippines vs. Jose Go

What are significant doctrines in this case?

In this case the bank Orient commercial bank Corp. was placed under receivership by the PPIC, diba ang
PPIC mobayad mn na sila sa mga depositors kay tungod in short man ang mga deposits in return PPIC
has to collect from the borrowers of the bank. It was discovered that there were loans who lease to
certain corporation however the amount was deposited to the account of the accused

For which reason the same is charged with estafa. So what are the significant doctrines that you are
about to take note?

First with respect to the relationship of the bank and its depositors

A bank takes its depositors money as the loan under an obligation to return the same thus the term
demand deposit.

The contract between the bank and its depositor is governed by the provision in Civil Code on simple
Loan.

Article 1980 CC

“Savings of money in bank and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple
Loan”

So there is a debtor – creditor relationship between the bank and the depositor. The bank is the debtor
and the depositor is the creditor. The depositor lends the bank money and the banks agrees to pay the
depositor on demand. So that is the nature of the relationship between the bank and the depositors.

Take note!

In relation to your criminal law the Elements of Estafa.

Through abuse of confidence through under Art. 315 paragraph 1 b of the Revised Penal Code.

Second Doctrine the obligations that the law imposed upon banks.

In commercial law banking laws imposed high standards on banks in view of the fiduciary nature of
banking. This fiduciary relationship means that the banks obligation to observe high standards of
integrity and performance is deemed written in every deposit agreement between a bank and its
depositors.

The fiduciary nature of banking requires banks to assume a degree of diligence higher than that of a
good father of a family.

Patrimonio vs. Gutierez

In this case was there a contract of loan perfected between Patrimonio and Marasigan?

So in this case there was abuse of trust and confidence to a friend. Patrimonio issued several checks in
favour of Napoleon Gutierez in relation to their business however Gutierez uses “usedaptia” as a
guarantee for the amount of money that he obtained or borrowed from Marasigan and because
Gutierez failed to pay, so Marasigan deposited those checks and considering that the account has no
sufficient deposit so patrimonio is also charge of BP blg. 22. Patrimonio filed before the a RTC a
complaint for declaration of nullity of loan and recovery of damages against Gutierez and corespondent
Marasigan. He completely denied authorizing the loan and the checks negotiations and ascertain that he
was not privy to the parties’ loan agreement.

Was there a contract of Loan perfected between Patrimonio and Marasigan?

No. You take note of the substantial ruling in this case in relation to the contract of agency under Art 878
of the Civil code. According to the Supreme Court the contract of loan entered into by the Gutierez in
behalf of the petitioner should be nullified for being null and void. Therefore petitioner is not bound by
the contract of loan. Because petitioner Patrimonio did not authorize Gutierez whether verbally or in
writing to borrow money in his behalf nor was he aware of any such transaction.

The issuance also of free signed checks in favour of Gutierez cannot be considered an authority granting
him to enter into a contract of loan with Marasigan.

PLDT vs. Estranero

Can PLDT deduct the loan obtained by Estranero from other entities?

PLDT is not the creditor of Estranero therefore it cannot deduct the amount receivable by that employee
in favour of those entities that he contracted loan and also in relaltion to Article 113 of the Labor Code “
No employer on his own behalf or in behalf of any person shall make any deduction from the wages of
his employee except in cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the
secretary of Labor and employment among others.

Article 1954 is Barter just take note of that.

The word non-fungible does not really mean non-fungible but non-consumable.

If the thing were really non-fungible the identical thing must be return but in barter the equivalent
things is returned.
Article 1955