JAVELLANA - v - LIM, ET AL.
EN BANC G.R. No. 4015, August 24, 1908, TORRES, J.:
Facts:
1.
Javellana filed a complaint in 1906
in CFI Iloilo, praying that the defendants be sentenced to jointly and
severally pay the sum of P2,686.58, with interest thereon at the rate of 15%
per annum, until full payment should be made, deducting from the amount of
interest due the sum of P1,102.16, and to pay the costs of the proceedings.
3.
A demurrer to the original
complaint was overruled, the defendants answered the original complaint before
its amendment, setting forth that they acknowledged that they admitted the
statements of the plaintiff relative to the payment of 1,102.16 pesos made in
1902, not, however, as payment of interest on the amount stated in the
foregoing document, but on account of the principal, and denied that there had
been any agreement as to an extension of the time for payment and the payment
of interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum.
4.
The court below rendered judgment
in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of the sum of P5,714.44 and costs.
5.
The defendants excepted(?) to the
above decision and moved for a new trial. This motion was overruled and was also
excepted(?) to by them.
6.
Hence, this case.
Issue:
Whether or not the document of indebtedness is one of deposit.
Held:
No.
Ruling:
-
The document of indebtedness
inserted in the complaint states that the plaintiff left on deposit with
the defendants a given sum of money which they were jointly and severally
obliged to return on a certain date fixed in the document; but that,
nevertheless, when the document appearing, written in the Visayan dialect and
followed by a translation into Spanish was executed, it was acknowledged, that
the amount deposited had not yet been returned to the creditor, whereby he was
subjected to losses and damages amounting to 830 pesos in 1898, x x x it is called a deposit consisted, and they
could have accomplished the return agreed upon by the delivery of a sum equal
to the one received by them.
-
For this reason it must be
understood that the debtors were lawfully authorized to make use of the
amount deposited, which they have done, as subsequent shown when asking for an
extension of the time for the return thereof, inasmuch as, acknowledging that
they have subjected the letter, their creditor, to losses and damages for not
complying with what had been stipulated, and being conscious that they had
used, for their own profit and gain, the money that they received apparently as
a deposit, they engaged to pay interest to the creditor from the date named
until the time when the refund should be made. Such conduct on the part of the debtors is unquestionable evidence that
the transaction entered into between the interested parties was not a deposit,
but a real contract of loan.
ü Article 1767 of the Civil Code provides that — The depository cannot make use of the thing deposited without the
express permission of the depositor. Otherwise he shall be liable for losses
and damages.
ü Article 1768 also provides that — When the depository has
permission to make use of the thing deposited, the contract loses the character
of a deposit and becomes a loan or bailment. The permission shall not be
presumed, and its existence must be proven.
-
When on one of the latter days of
1898, Jose Lim went to the office of the creditor asking for an extension of
one year, in view of the fact the money was scare, and because neither himself
nor the other defendant were able to return the amount deposited, for which
reason he agreed to pay interest at the rate of 15 % per annum, it was because,
as a matter of fact, he did not have in his possession the amount deposited,
he having made use of the same in his business and for his own profit; and the
creditor, by granting them the extension, evidently confirmed the express
permission previously given to use and dispose of the amount stated as having
been deposited, which, in accordance with the loan, to all intents and purposes
gratuitously, until 1898, and from that dated with interest at 15% per
annum until its full payment, deducting from the total amount of interest the
sum of 1,000 pesos, in accordance with the provisions of article 1173 of the
Civil Code.
-
There was no renewal of the
contract deposited converted into a loan, because, as has already been stated,
the defendants received said amount by virtue of real loan contract under
the name of a deposit, since the so-called bailees were forthwith authorized to
dispose of the amount deposited.
[1]
We have received from Angel Javellana, as a deposit without interest, the sum
of two thousand six hundred and eighty-six cents of pesos fuertes, which we
will return to the said gentleman, jointly and severally, on the 20th of
January, 1898. — Jaro, 26th of May, 1897. — Signed Jose Lim. — Signed: Ceferino
Domingo Lim.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
