AISHA

Mina v. Pascual, 25 Phil 540

Facts:

Francisco Fontanilla and Andres Fontanilla were brothers. Francisco

Fontanilla acquired a lot. Andres, with the consent of his brother Francisco,

erected a warehouse on a part of the said 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. However, Mina opposed
arguing that the lot is hers because her predecessor (Francisco) never parted
with the ownership of the lot when he let Andres construct a warehouse,
hence, it was a contract of commodatum.

Issue: WON the nature of the contract of Francisco and Andres is commodatum.
Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that it was NOT a commodatum. It is an essential

feature of commodatum that the use of the thing belonging to another shall

be for a certain period.

The parties never fixed a definite period during which Andres could use the
lot and afterwards return it.

Republic vs Unimex
Facts:

Unimex Micro-Electronics GmBH (Unimex) shipped a 40-foot container and

171 cartons of Atari game computer cartridges, duplicators, expanders,
remote controllers, parts and accessories to Handyware Phils.

After the shipment arrived in the Port of Manila, the Bureau of Customs
(BOC) agents discovered that it did not tally with the description appearing

on the cargo manifest.

As a result, BOC instituted seizure proceedings against Handyware and later

issued a warrant of seizure and detention against the shipment.

Case was filed by Unimex against BOC where they won and the court ordered
the BOC to return the seized shipment to the former. However, they were not

able to find said shipments in the warehouse.

Hence, the court ordered BOC to pay Unimex the equal amount of the
shipment lost.

Issue: WON the payment of BOC to Unimex falls under mutuum.

Ruling:

Yes, it must be noted that mutuum is a contract whereby one of the

parties delivers to another a money or other consumable thing with the
understanding that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be

paid.
Hence, BOC is ordered to pay respondent the value of the subject
shipment in the amount of Euro 669,982.565. Petitioners liability may be
paid in Philippine currency, computed at the exchange rate prevailing at
the time of actual payment.

MELVIN
CITIBANK VS SABENIANO
Facts:

Citibank is a banking corporation duly authorized under the laws of

the United States of America to do commercial banking activities in
the Philippines.

Sabeniano was a client of both Citibank and FNCB Finance.

Respondent filed a complaint against petitioners claiming to have
substantial deposits; the proceeds of which were supposedly deposited
automatically and directly to respondents account with Citibank but it

allegedly refused to do so despite repeated demands.

Petitioner alleged that respondent obtained several loans from the
former and is in default, Citibank exercised its right to set-off
respondents outstanding loans with her deposits and money.

Issue: WON the payment of Citibank to the respondent constitutes the nature
of mutuum.

Ruling:

Yes, it must be noted that mutuum is a contract whereby one of the parties
delivers to another a money or other consumable thing with the understanding

that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid.
In this case, Citibank is ordered to return to respondent the principal amount
of P318,897.34 and P203,150.00 plus 14.5% per annum. The remittance of US
$149,632.99 from respondents Citibank-Geneva account is declared illegal,
thus Citibank is ordered to refund said amount in Philippine currency or its
equivalent using exchange rate at the time of payment.