Datukon, Jahn Avery
  accommodate
Garcia v. Thio
G.R. No. 154878 | March 16, 2007, | J. Corona
PETITIONERS: Carolyn M. Garcia
RESPONDENTS: Rica Marie S. Thio
Doctrine:
 A loan is a real contract, not consensual,
and as such is perfected only upon the
delivery of the object of the contract.
 Upon delivery of the object of the contract
of loan the debtor acquires ownership of
such money or loan proceeds and is
bound to pay the creditor an equal amount.
Short Facts:
1. Thio received from Garcia a crossed check in an
amount of $100,000.00 USD with an interest
rate of 3% and P500,000.00 with the interest
rate of 4% payable to the order of one Marilou
Santiago.
2. As a result, Garcia was able to received
several payments from March to October in
different amount but Thio failed to pay the
principal amount of the loans when it fell due.
3. Upon Maturity of the loan, Garcia demanded the
payment of the said loans, but Thio denied that
she contracted the loans and even contested
that it was Marilou Santiago.
 
FACTS:
1. In February 1995, respondent Rica Marie S.
Thio received from petitioner Carolyn M. Garcia
a crossed check in the amount of USD$100,000
payable to the order of a certain Marilou
Santiago. Petitioner thereafter received
payments of USD$3,000 and P76,500 from
respondent every month after.
2. Respondent received from petitioner another
crossed check dated June 29, 1995, in the
amount of P500,000, also payable to the order
of Marilou Santiago. Petitioner received from
respondent the amount of P20,000 every month
after.
3. Because of non-payment of the principal
amount, petitioner filed a complaint for sum of
money and damages in the RTC of Makati City,
seeking to collect the sums of USD$100,000,
with interest (3% per month) and P500,000, with
interest (4% per month) plus other fees.
4. Respondent denied that she contracted the two
loans with petitioner and countered that it was
Marilou Santiago to whom petitioner lent the
money and that not as payment of interest but to
petitioner’s request that
respondent use her own checks instead of
Santiago’s.
COURT RULINGS:
RTC: Ruled in favor Petitioner Garcia
CA: Reversed the decision and ruled that there
was no contract of loan between the parties.
ISSUE/s:
1. WoN there is a contract of loan between the
parties? YES.
 
RATIO:
 A loan is a real contract, not consensual, and as
such is perfected only upon the delivery of the
object of the contract. This is evident in Art. 1934
of the Civil Code which provides:
o “An accepted promise to deliver
something by way of commodatum or
simple loan is binding upon the
parties, but the commodatum or
simple loan itself shall not be
perfected until the delivery of the
object of the contract.”
 Upon delivery of the object of the contract of
loan the debtor acquires ownership of such
money or loan proceeds and is bound to pay the
creditor an equal amount.
 This is evidenced in the case by the money
received by the debtor when the checks were
encashed.
 The Court agreed with RTC decision, but
however disagrees that respondent is liable for
3% and 4% monthly interest. There was no
written proof of the interest payable except for
the verbal agreement that the loans would earn
3% and 4% interest per month. Article 1956 of
the Civil Code provides that "[n]o interest shall
be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in
writing."
 Pursuant to Article 2209 of the Civil Code. It is
well-settled that in the absence of stipulation, the
rate of interest shall be 12%per annum to be
computed from default.
RULING: PETITION GRANTED, CA ruling
reversed and set aside