Article 1933

1. G.R. No. 175139, April 18, 2012, ESTORES vs. SPOUSES SUPANGAN,
Forbearance of money, goods or credits should therefore refer to arrangements other
than loan agreements, where a person acquiesces to the temporary use of his money, goods or
credits pending happening of certain events or fulfillment of certain conditions. In this case, the
respondent-spouses parted with their money even before the conditions were fulfilled. They have
therefore allowed or granted forbearance to the seller (petitioner) to use their money pending
fulfillment of the conditions. They were deprived of the use of their money for the period pending
fulfillment of the conditions and when those conditions were breached, they are entitled not only
to the return of the principal amount paid, but also to compensation for the use of their money.
And the compensation for the use of their money, absent any stipulation, should be the same
rate of legal interest applicable to a loan since the use or deprivation of funds is similar to a loan.

G.R. No. 115324, February 19, 2003, PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
CA and VIVES
The foregoing provision seems to imply that if the subject of the contract is a consumable thing,
such as money, the contract would be a mutuum. However, there are some instances where a
commodatum may have for its object a consumable thing. Article 1936 of the Civil Code provides:
Consumable goods may be the subject of commodatum if the purpose of the contract is not the
consumption of the object, as when it is merely for exhibition.
Thus, if consumable goods are loaned only for purposes of exhibition, or when the intention of
the parties is to lend consumable goods and to have the very same goods returned at the end of the
period agreed upon, the loan is a commodatum and not a mutuum.
The rule is that the intention of the parties thereto shall be accorded primordial consideration in
determining the actual character of a contract. In case of doubt, the contemporaneous and subsequent
acts of the parties shall be considered in such determination.

G.R. No. 160758, January 15, 2014, DBP, vs. GUARIÑA AGRICULTURAL AND REALTY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Under the law, a loan requires the delivery of money or any other consumable object by one
party to another who acquires ownership thereof, on the condition that the same amount or quality shall
be paid. Loan is a reciprocal obligation, as it arises from the same cause where one party is the creditor,
and the other the debtor. The obligation of one party in a reciprocal obligation is dependent upon the
obligation of the other, and the performance should ideally be simultaneous. This means that in a loan,
the creditor should release the full loan amount and the debtor repays it when it becomes due and
demandable.

Article 1934
G.R. No. 133632, February 15, 2002, BPI INVESTMENT CORPORATION, vs.
CA and ALS MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
A loan contract is not a consensual contract but a real contract. It is perfected only upon the
delivery of the object of the contract.

G.R. No. 194507 September 8, 2014

FEDERAL BUILDERS, INC., vs. FOUNDATION SPECIALISTS, INC
Forbearance of money, goods or credits, therefore, refers to arrangements other than loan
agreements, where a person acquiesces to the temporary use of his money, goods or credits pending
the happening of certain events or fulfilment of certain conditions. Consequently, if those conditions are
breached, said person is entitled not only to the return of the principal amount paid, but also to
compensation for the use of his money which would be the same rate of legal interest applicable to a
loan since the use or deprivation of funds therein is similar to a loan.

G.R. No. 195166, SPOUSES SALVADOR ABELLA vs. SPOUSES ROMEO ABELLA
Article 1956 of the Civil Code, read in light of established jurisprudence, prevents the application
of any interest rate other than that specifically provided for by the parties in their loan document or, in
lieu of it, the legal rate.