1 Producers Bank v.

CA and Vives 3

2 Finman General Insurance Corp. v. Salik et al 5

3 Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources Corp. v. Titan-Ikeda Construction and Devel-
opment Corp 7

4 Baluran v. Navarro 8

5 Heirs of Ignacio v. Home Bankers Savings and Trust Company and Sps. Rodriguez
10

6 United Muslim and Christian Urban Poor Association, Inc., rep. by its President v.
BRYC-V Development Corporation, rep. by its President and Executive Vice Presi-
dent 11

7 Formida v. RTC 12

8 Segura v. Segura 13

9 Ocampo v. CA and Villaruz 14

10 Ten Forty Realty and Development Corp., rep. by its President v. Cruz 15

11 Philippine Suburban Development Corp. v. The Auditor General 16

12 Sps. Salera vs. Sps. Rodaje 17

13 Vda. De Alcantara et al v. CA, Cruz and Santiago 18

14 Sps. Pudadera v. Magallanes et al 19

15 Sps. Natino v. IAC, Rural Bank of Aguilar, and Pangasinan’s Provincial Ex-Officio
Sheriff 20

16 PNR, et al v. CA 21

17 Libi et al v. IAC and Gotiong 22

Page 1 of 22
 Page 2 of 22
6
Credit Transactions
Loan

1 Producers Bank v. CA and Vives

GR 115324. February 19, 2003

Facts:
Vives agreed to deposit his 200,000 in the savings account of Sterela, the firm of
Col. Doronilla. It is specifically for the purpose of making it appear that said firm had suf-
ficient capitalization for incorporation, with the promise that the amount shall be returned
within thirty (30) days.
Vives merely accommodated Doronilla by lending his money without considera-
tion, as a favor to his good friend Sanchez. It was however clear to the parties to the
transaction that the money would not be removed from Sterelas savings account and
would be returned to private respondent after thirty (30) days.
However, later, Doronilla, through Sterela, was discovered to have opened a cur-
rent account, and obtained a loan from the bank.
Vives finally communicated with him and received two postdated checks for two
attempts. This is to substitute the 200,000 plus interest of 12,000 thereon. However, the
checks were dishonored.

Issue:
Is the contract a mutuum or commodatum?

Ruling:

Commodatum.

Article 1933, Civil Code 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.

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 de-
termination.

Page 3 of 22
 Here, Vives agreed to deposit his money in the savings account of Sterela specif-
ically for the purpose of making it appear that said firm had sufficient capitalization for
incorporation, with the promise that the amount shall be returned within thirty (30) days.

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.

Here, the return of the 200,000 with 12,000 interest did not convert the transac-
tion from a commodatum into a mutuum because such was not the intent of the parties.
The additional P12,000.00 corresponds to the fruits of the lending of the P200,000.00.

Thus, it was only proper for Doronilla to remit to Vives the interest accruing to the
latters money deposited with Producers.

Page 4 of 22
8
Credit Transactions
Guaranty and Suretyship

2 Finman General Insurance Corp. v. Salik et al

GR 84084 August 20, 1990

Facts:

Finman and Pan Pacific entered into a suretyship agreement, with the former
agreeing that the bond is conditioned upon the true and faithful performance and obser-
vance of the bonded principal (Pan Pacific) of its duties and obligations.

It was also understood that under the suretyship agreement, Finman undertook
itself to be jointly and severally liable for all claims arising from recruitment violation of
Pan Pacific.

Salik et al applied with Pan Overseas Recruiting Services and were assured em-
ployment abroad. But despite numerous assurances of employment abroad given, they
were not employed. Thus the complaint with the POEA.

The POEA motu proprio impleaded and summoned herein surety Finman Gener-
al Assurance Corporation, in the latter's capacity as Pan Pacific's bonding company.

Finman answered among others, that herein Salik et al do not have a valid cause
of action against it; that Finman is not privy to any transaction undertaken by Pan Pacif-
ic with Salik et al.

Issue:

Can Finman Insurance be liable as surety despite not having been impleaded in
the complaint?

Ruling:

Yes.

As correctly stated by the Solicitor General, Salik et al have a legal claim against
Pan Pacific and its insurer Finman for the placement and processing fees they paid, so
much so that in order to provide a complete relief to Salik et al, Finman had to be im-
pleaded in the case.

In Government of the Philippines v. Tizon (20 SCRA 1182 [1967]), where the
surety bound itself solidarily with the principal obligor, the former is so dependent on the
principal debtor "that the surety is considered in law as being the same party as the
debtor in relation to whatever is adjudged touching the obligation of the latter.”

Page 5 of 22
 Page 6 of 22
6
Contract for a Piece of Work

3 Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources Corp. v. Titan-Ikeda

Construction and Development Corp
GR 126619; December 20, 2006

Facts:

Issue:

Is Titan entitled to be paid because the additional works were without any written
authorization?

Ruling:

Page 7 of 22
4
Sale
Sale distinguished from other contracts

4 Baluran v. Navarro
L-44428 September 30, 1977

Facts:

Baluran and Paraiso (ancestor of Obedencio) entered into a contract which they
called barter, but in fact stipulated that they would only transfer the material possession
of their respective properties to each other.

Thus, Baluran will be allowed to construct a residential house on the land of

Paraiso while Paraiso is entitled to reap the fruits of the riceland of Baluran. The con-
tract prohibited them from alienating the properties of the other and contained a stipula-
tion that should the heirs of Paraiso desire to re-possess the residential lot, Baluran is
obliged to return the lot. Indeed, years after, Obedencio (grandchild of Paraiso) acquired
the ownership of the residential lot from his mother and demanded that Baluran, who
was in possession, vacate.

Baluran now counters that the barter already transferred ownership.

Issue:

Is there a barter or usufruct?

Ruling:

Usufruct.

First, the contract is what the law defines it to be and not what the parties call it. It
is very clear that what the parties exchanged was not ownership, but merely material
possession or the right to enjoy the thing.

Now, because it is usufruct, the law allows the parties to stipulate the conditions
including the manner of its extinguishment. In this case, it was subject to a resolutory
condition which is in case the heir of Paraiso (a third party) desires to repossess the
property. Upon the happening of the condition, the contract is extinguished.

Therefore, Baluran must return the land to Obedencia. But since Art. 579 allows
the usufructuary to remove improvements he made, Baluran may remove the house he
constructed.

Page 8 of 22
 One last point. At the time of this case, the Obedencias were also in possession
of the riceland of Baluran. Although it was not proper to decide the issue of possession
in this case, the Court nevertheless decided on the matter and order the Obedencias to
vacate the property inasmuch as there was an extinguishment of a reciprocal obliga-
tions and rights.


Page 9 of 22
1
Sale
Formation of Contract of Sale—Preparatory

5 Heirs of Ignacio v. Home Bankers Savings and Trust Com-

pany and Sps. Rodriguez
GR 177783 : January 23, 2013

Page 10 of 22
1
Sale
Formation of Contract of Sale—Formalities

6 United Muslim and Christian Urban Poor Association, Inc.,

rep. by its President v. BRYC-V Development Corporation,
rep. by its President and Executive Vice President
GR 179653, July 31, 2009

Page 11 of 22
20
Sale
Parties to a Contract of Sale

7 Formida v. RTC

Page 12 of 22
13

Sale

Object/Subject Matter of Sale

8 Segura v. Segura
GR L-29320 September 19, 1988

Page 13 of 22
20
Sale
Price/Consideration

9 Ocampo v. CA and Villaruz

GR 97442 June 30, 1994

Page 14 of 22
9

Sale

Obligations of the Seller—Principal Obligations

10 Ten Forty Realty and Development Corp., rep. by its Presi-

dent v. Cruz
GR 151212. September 10, 2003

Page 15 of 22
31

Sale

Obligations of the Seller—Principal Obligations

11 Philippine Suburban Development Corp. v. The Auditor

General
GR L-19545 April 18, 1975

Page 16 of 22
11

Sale

Obligations of the Seller—Double Sale

12 Sps. Salera vs. Sps. Rodaje

GR 135900, August 17, 2007

Page 17 of 22
33

Sale

Obligations of the Seller—Double Sale

13 Vda. De Alcantara et al v. CA, Cruz and Santiago

GR 114762. January 29, 1996

Page 18 of 22
55

Sale

Obligations of the Seller—Double Sale

14 Sps. Pudadera v. Magallanes et al

GR 170073, October 18, 2010

Page 19 of 22
7

Sale

Extinguishment of Sale

15 Sps. Natino v. IAC, Rural Bank of Aguilar, and Pangasi-

nan’s Provincial Ex-Officio Sheriff
GR 73573, May 23, 1991

Page 20 of 22
10

Torts and Damages

Torts

16 PNR, et al v. CA
GR L-55347, 4 October 1985

Page 21 of 22
32

Torts and Damages

Torts

17 Libi et al v. IAC and Gotiong

GR 70890. September 18, 1992

Page 22 of 22