PRODUCERS BANK vs.

CA money through his wife who was made a signatory to the

savings account and in whose possession the savings account
FACTS:
passbook was given.
VIVES was asked by SANCHEZ, the former’s neighbor, to help
DORONILLA in incorporating Sterela Marketing and Services
ISSUE:
by depositing in Sterela’s bank account a certain amount of
WON the transaction between VIVES and DORONILLA
money for purposes of its incorporation. SANCHEZ assured
was a commodatum. YES.
VIVES that he could withdraw his money within a month’s
time.
HELD:
THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN VIVES AND DORONILLA
Relying on the assurances and representations of SANCHEZ
WAS A COMMODATUM AND NOT A MUTUUM.
and DORONILLA, VIVES issued a check for P200,000 in favor
A circumspect examination of the records reveals that the
of Sterela. VIVES instructed his wife to accompany
transaction between them was a commodatum.
DORONILLA and SANCHEZ in opening a savings account in the
name of Sterela in Producers Bank of the Philippines.
Article 1933 of the Civil Code distinguishes between the
However, only SANCHEZ, MRS. VIVES and DORONILLA’s
two kinds of loans in this wise:
Secretary went to the bank to deposit the check. In opening
By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to
the account, the authorized signatories were MRS. VIVES
another, either something not consumable so that the
and/or SANCHEZ.
latter may use the same for a certain time and return it,
in which case the contract is called a commodatum; or
Subsequently, VIVES learned that Sterela was no longer
money or other consumable thing, upon the condition
holding office in the address previously given to him. Alarmed,
that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall
he and his wife went to the Bank to verify if their money was
be paid, in which case the contract is simply called a loan
still intact. The bank informed them that part of the money in
or mutuum.
savings account had been withdrawn by DORONILLA, and that
only P90,000 remained therein. He likewise told them that
Commodatum is essentially gratuitous.
Mrs. Vives could not withdraw said remaining amount because
it had to answer for some postdated checks issued by
Simple loan may be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay
DORONILLA.
interest.
According the bank, after the opening of the savings account,
In commodatum, the bailor retains the ownership of the
DORONILLA opened a current account for Sterela and
thing loaned, while in simple loan, ownership passes to
authorized the Bank to debit the savings account for the
the borrower.
amounts necessary to cover overdrawings in the current
account. In opening said current account, Sterela, through
The foregoing provision seems to imply that if the subject of
DORONILLA, obtained a loan of P175,000 from the Bank. To
the contract is a consumable thing, such as money, the
cover payment, DORONILLA issued three postdated checks,
contract would be a mutuum. However, there are some
all of which were dishonored. DORONILLA could assign or
instances where a commodatum may have for its object a
withdraw the money in the saving account because he was
consumable thing.
the sole proprietor of Sterela.
Article 1936 of the Civil Code provides:
DORONILLA assured VIVES that his money was intact and
Consumable goods may be the subject of commodatum if
would be returned to him. DORONILLA then issued a
the purpose of the contract is not the consumption of the
postdated check which however dishonored due to
object, as when it is merely for exhibition.
insufficiency of funds.
Thus, if consumable goods are loaned only for purposes of
VIVES instituted an action for recovery of sum of money
exhibition, or when the intention of the parties is to lend
against DORONILLA, SANCHEZ, DUMAGPI (the secretary) and
consumable goods and to have the very same goods returned
the bank as well as criminal actions.
at the end of the period agreed upon, the loan is a
commodatum and not a mutuum.
RTC: Granted. DORONILLA et al are ordered to pay SANCHEZ.
The rule is that the intention of the parties thereto shall be
CA: Affirmed.
accorded primordial consideration in determining the actual
character of a contract. In case of doubt, the
The bank contends that the transaction between VIVES and
contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties shall be
DORONILLA is a simple loan (mutuum) since all the elements
considered in such determination.
of a mutuum are present: first, what was delivered by VIVES
to DORONILLA was money, a consumable thing; and second,
The evidence shows that VIVES agreed to deposit his money
the transaction was onerous as DORONILLA was obliged to
in the savings account of Sterela specifically for the purpose
pay interest, as evidenced by the check issued by DORONILLA
of making it appear that said firm had sufficient capitalization
in the amount of P212,000.00, or P12,000 more than what
for incorporation, with the promise that the amount shall be
VUVES deposited in Sterela’s bank account. Moreover, the
returned within thirty (30) days. VIVES merely accommodated
fact that VIVES sued his good friend SANCHEZ for his failure to
DORONILLA by lending his money without consideration, as a
recover his money from DORONILLA shows that the
favor to his good friend SANCHEZ. It was however clear to the
transaction was not merely gratuitous but had a business
parties to the transaction that the money would not be
angle to it. Hence, the Bank argues that it cannot be held
removed from Sterela’s savings account and would be
liable for the return of VIVES’ P200,000 because it is not privy
returned to VIVES after thirty (30) days.
to the transaction.
THE ADDITIONAL P12,000 CORRESPONDS TO THE
On the other hand, VIVES alleged that the transaction
FRUITS OF THE LENDING OF THE P200,000
between him and DORONILLA is not a mutuum but an
DORONILLAs attempts to return to VIVES the amount of
accommodation, since he did not actually part with the
P200,000 together with an additional P12,000.00, allegedly
ownership of his P200,000 and in fact asked his wife to
representing interest on the mutuum, did not convert the
deposit said amount in the account of Sterela so that a
transaction from a commodatum into a mutuum because such
certification can be issued to the effect that Sterela had
was not the intent of the parties and because the additional
sufficient funds for purposes of its incorporation but at the
P12,000 corresponds to the fruits of the lending of the
same time, he retained some degree of control over his
P200,000.00. Article 1935 of the Civil Code expressly
states that [t]he bailee in commodatum acquires the use of
the thing loaned but not its fruits. Hence, it was only proper
for DORONILLA to remit to VIVES the interest accruing to the
latter’s money deposited with the Bank.