Ignacio, Mary Anne Kristelle H.

July 29, 2021

Credit Transactions- Section 3 Atty. Jose Eduardo Genilo

Naguiat vs. CA, GR 118375 (2003)

BPI Investment Corporation vs. CA, GR 133632, Feb. 15, 2002

Pantaleon v. American Express Intl GR 174269 May 8, 2009

Central Bank of the Phils. Vs. CA, 139 SCRA 46 (1985)

Republic vs Bagtas, 6 SCRA 262 (1962)

Producers Bank of the Philippines vs. CA, GR 115324 (2003)

Republic v Balagtas 6 SCRA 262 (1962)

Murao v People, 462 SCRA 366 (2005)

Quintos and Ansaldo v. Beck, 69 Phil 108 (1939)

Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mt Province v. CA, 165 SCRA 515 (1988)
Ignacio, Mary Anne Kristelle H. July 29, 2021
Credit Transactions- Section 3 Atty. Jose Eduardo Genilo

Assignment 1: Case Digests

ALEJANDRA MINA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.
RUPERTA PASCUAL, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
Doctrine: By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to the other, either anything
not perishable, in order that the latter may use it during the certain period and return it to
the former, in which case it is called commodatum.
Facts: Francisco is the owner of land and he allowed his brother, Andres, to erect a
warehouse in that lot. Both Francisco and Andres died and their children became their
respective heirs: Mina for Francisco and Pascual for Andres. Pascual sold his share of the
warehouse and lot. Mina opposed because the lot is hers because her predecessor
(Francisco) never parted with its ownership when he let Andres construct a warehouse,
hence, it was a contract of commodatum.

Issue: Whether or not there was a contract of commodatum?

Ruling: No. There was no contract of commodatum.

Although both litigating parties may have agreed in their idea of the commodatum, on
account of its not being, as indeed it is not, a question of fact but of law. Contracts are not to
be interpreted in conformity with the name that the parties thereto agree to give them, but
must be construed, duly considering their constitutive elements, as they are defined and
denominated by law. An essential feature of the commodatum is that the use of the thing
belonging to another shall for a certain period. In this case the supreme court explained that
Francisco Fontanilla did not fix any definite period or time during which Andres Fontanilla
could have the use of the lot whereon the latter was to erect the warehouse.

FELIX DE LOS SANTOS,

vs.
AGUSTINA JARRA
Doctrine:dgs

Facts:
Ignacio, Mary Anne Kristelle H. July 29, 2021
Credit Transactions- Section 3 Atty. Jose Eduardo Genilo

Issue:

Ruling:

ALEJANDRA MINA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.
RUPERTA PASCUAL, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
Doctrine:
Ignacio, Mary Anne Kristelle H. July 29, 2021
Credit Transactions- Section 3 Atty. Jose Eduardo Genilo

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling: