2. What was the petitioner’s basis in arguing in favor of mutuum?

What was the respondent’s counter argument.

ANS: Petitioner contends that the transaction between the parties is a

simple loan (mutuum) since all the elements of a mutuum are present:
A. The subject matter is money, which is consumable thing;
B. The transaction is onerous, as proved by the following facts
1. There was an obligation to pay the interest, and
2. The act of suing a good friend shows that the transaction has a business angle to it

ANS: Respondents contend that the transaction is an accomodation, because he merely lent money to
his good friend without consideration. Also attendant are the following facts:

A. He did not actually part with the deposited amount, and

B. He retained some degree of control over his money since he and his wife are still signatories to the
savings account,