Bonnavie v CA
ABOUT: NAWALNG COMPANY CAR AFTER IPA-VALET SA ISANG RESTAU
Doctrine:
Where mortrgage deed was executed fior and ion condition of the loan granted to the morgagorst,
the face that the latter did not collect from the mortagee bank the consideration of the mortage on
the date it was executed but 6 days later when the morgagors and their co maker signed the PN is
immaterial. The contract of loan being consensual, it was perfected at the same time that the
contract of mortagge was executed, the PN being only an evid of an indebtedness and did not
indicate lack of cionsideration of the mortgage at the time of its existence.
Yong Chang Kim v Peo
Doctrine: No estafa is committed by a person who refuses to pay his debt or denies its exitence.
The SC held that a person who buys rice on credit becomes the owner of it and indebted for its price, but
is NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA by reasonof not paying for it. Similarly, the SC held that
since ownership of the money was transferred to the petitioner, no fiduciary rel was created. Absent this
fid rel bet petitioner and resp, which is an essenteial element of the crime of Estafa by misapprpriation or
conversion, petitioner could not have committed estafa.
BPI FAMv Franco
Facts: Tevesco opened saving and current acct w BPI.
FMIC also opened a time dep with same bvranch w 100M maturing in one year
Franco opened three accts 500k, 500k, 1M
ISSUE: who has better right to the funds in Franco’s accts anf Whether BPI can unilateralluy freeze the
acct
Held: there is no doubt that BPI owns the deposited monies in that acct of Franco.
BPI conveniently forgets that the deposit of money in banks is governed by NCC on simple Mutuum. As
there is a s Dr-CR rel betweet a bank and its depositor, BPI acquired ownership of Franco;s deposits BUT
such ownership is coupled with a corresponding obligation to pay him an Equal amt on demand.
Althouigh BPI owns the deposts of Franco, it cannot prevent him from demanding payment of BPI’s obli
by drawing checks agsint his cuyrrent account or asking for the release of the funds in his savings acct.
Franco had a aright as creditor to expect that those checks would be honored by BPI.
Banco Filipino Savings v Navarro
Doctrinbe:A contract which embodies an escalation clause authorizing automatic increase in the interest
rates in the event a law increasing rates of interest that may be charged is passed, does not constitue the
Cemntal Bank Circular which, although having the force and effect of law, is not strictly a statute or law.
The distinction is recognized in Section 7 a above speaks of interest increased or reduced by law or by
MB.
Admin rules and regs adopted pursuant to law gave the force and effect of law but ther do not fall within
the term law.
Triple V and Fil Merch
Nag ask yung company sa Insurer niya na indemify siya for the loss of the vehicle. Insurer as subrogee to
company’s rights filed damegaes againts Triple V( mayari ng restau)
Issue: Can the restau be liable
Held: Yes.
When d ENTRUSTED THE CAR TO RESTAU’S VALET PATKING WHIOLE EATING, d EXPECTED
THE CAR’S SAFE RETUN
THUS RESTAU WAS CONSTITUTED AS A depoSITARY of the same car. Petitioner cannot evade liab
by arguing that neither a contract orf deposit nor that of insurance for the loss of the car was consituted
when D availed of its free vbalet parking.
Nature of deposit, essentially gratuitous. It is not necesary that the depositary receives compensation
before it becomes obligated to keep the item entrusted for safekeeping and return it to the depositor.
On the issue naman sa parking stub na wala daw liab yung restau in casee of loss or dame, it does not
shield the restau from liab. Contract of adhesion. Di naman void though. Pero kasi evident na dineposit ni
D yung car sa restau as part of the restau’s enticemntr for customers na free valet nila and free parking.
SOOOOO since ni entrust ni D yung car sa kanila, ,may obli sila i return yun safely.
What is the rule of thumb in the application of interest on the following?
1. Breach of payment for loan or forbearance
When the obligation breached consists of payment of a sum of money (loan or
forbearance of money) , the interest shall be that which is stipulated or agreed upon by the
parties.
In absence of an agreement,the rate shall be the legal rate (i.e. 6% per annum)
computed from default.
NOTE: The interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is
judiciallydemandedii.
2. In other cases, the rate of interest shall be six percent (6%) per annum.
NOTE: No interest, however,shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except
when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. When the demand
cannot be established, the interest shall begin to run only from the date of the judgment of the
court is made.
3. When the judgment of thecourt awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory , the
rate of legalinterest, whether the casefalls under paragraph i or iiabove, shall be 6% per annum
from such finalityuntil its satisfaction, thisinterim period being deemedto be by then an
equivalentto a forbearance of credit.(
Eastern Shipping Lines vs.CA, July 12, 1994