Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    (R) Evangelista Kevin - Javellana V Lim

    Uploaded by

    LeulaDianneCantos
    1) Jose Lim and Domingo Lim executed a document stating they received 2,600.86 pesos as a "deposit" from Angel Javellana, to be returned on January 20, 1898. 2) When the defendants did not pay on the due date, they asked for an extension and agreed to pay 15% annual interest. 3) The court ruled the contract was not a deposit but a loan (mutuum), as the defendants were authorized to use the money and agreed to pay interest, making it a loan rather than a deposit. 4) The court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of Javellana, ordering payment of the amount due plus 15%

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    (R) Evangelista Kevin - Javellana V Lim

    Uploaded by

    LeulaDianneCantos
    41 views2 pages
    1) Jose Lim and Domingo Lim executed a document stating they received 2,600.86 pesos as a "deposit" from Angel Javellana, to be returned on January 20, 1898. 2) When the defendants did not pay on the due date, they asked for an extension and agreed to pay 15% annual interest. 3) The court ruled the contract was not a deposit but a loan (mutuum), as the defendants were authorized to use the money and agreed to pay interest, making it a loan rather than a deposit. 4) The court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of Javellana, ordering payment of the amount due plus 15%

    Original Description:

    DIGEST

    Original Title

    (R)Evangelista Kevin- Javellana v Lim

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Jose Lim and Domingo Lim executed a document stating they received 2,600.86 pesos as a "deposit" from Angel Javellana, to be returned on January 20, 1898. 2) When the defendants did not pay on the due date, they asked for an extension and agreed to pay 15% annual interest. 3) The court ruled the contract was not a deposit but a loan (mutuum), as the defendants were authorized to use the money and agreed to pay interest, making it a loan rather than a deposit. 4) The court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of Javellana, ordering payment of the amount due plus 15%

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    41 views2 pages

    (R) Evangelista Kevin - Javellana V Lim

    Uploaded by

    LeulaDianneCantos
    1) Jose Lim and Domingo Lim executed a document stating they received 2,600.86 pesos as a "deposit" from Angel Javellana, to be returned on January 20, 1898. 2) When the defendants did not pay on the due date, they asked for an extension and agreed to pay 15% annual interest. 3) The court ruled the contract was not a deposit but a loan (mutuum), as the defendants were authorized to use the money and agreed to pay interest, making it a loan rather than a deposit. 4) The court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of Javellana, ordering payment of the amount due plus 15%

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    I.SHORT TITLE: JAVELLANA v. LIM, ET AL.

    II. FULL TITLE: ANGEL JAVELLANA, plaintiff and appellee, vs. JOSE LIM ET AL.,
    defendants and appellants. ; GR NO. 4015. AUGUST 24, 1908., TORRES, J.

    II. STATEMENT OF FACTS:

    On 26 May 1897, Jose Lim and Domingo Lim executed a document in favor of Angel
    Javellana, wherein it stated that they had received a sum of P2,600.86 as a deposit
    without interest from the latter. The document also stipulated that they would return the
    same amount jointly and severally on 20 January 1898.

    Upon the stipulated due date, the defendants asked for an extension to pay
    and binding themselves to pay 15% interest per annum on the amount of
    their indebtedness, to which the plaintiff-appellee acceded. The defendants
    were not able to pay the full amount of their indebtedness notwithstanding
    the request made by plaintiff-appellee. This prompted Javellana to file a civil
    action before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.

    V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

    Court of First Instance of Iloilo ruled in favor of Javellana to recover the amount due
    plus payment of 15% interest per annum.

    VI. ISSUE: Whether or not the contract executed by Angel and Jose and others was
    that of a deposit

    VII. RULING:

    No, the contract executed by Angel Javellana and Jose Lim and others was not a
    deposit. Instead, it was a contract of simple loan or mutuum.
    It must be understood that Jose and others were lawfully authorized to make use of the
    amount deposited, which they have done as subsequently shown when they asked for
    an extension of the time for the return thereof. They were conscious that they had used,
    for their own profit and gain, the money which they apparently received as a deposit.
    Moreover, they engaged to pay interest to Angel from the stipulated date until the time
    when the refund should have been made.
    Where money, consisting of coins of legal tender, is deposited with a person and the
    latter is authorized by the depositor to use and dispose of the same, the agreement is
    not a contract of deposit, but a loan. Moreover, Article 1978 of the New Civil Code
    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.

    A subsequent agreement between the parties as to interest on the amount said to have
    been deposited, because the same could not be returned at the time fixed therefor,
    does not constitute a renewal of an agreement of deposit, but it is the best evidence
    that the original contract entered into between them was for a loan under the guise of a
    deposit

    VIII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, and adopting the findings in the judgment


    appealed from, it is our opinion that the same should be and is hereby
    affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant, provided that
    the interest agreed upon shall be paid until the complete liquidation of the
    debt.

    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like