Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    Chee Kiong Yam Vs Hon. Malik, G.R. No. L-50550-52 October 31, 1979

    Uploaded by

    Rizchelle Sampang-Manaog
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were not guilty of estafa through misappropriation. Based on the criminal complaints, civil complaints, and sworn statements, the money received from the respondents were loans, not commodatum. In a loan or mutuum, the borrower acquires ownership of the money or property and can dispose of it as they wish. Therefore, the petitioners' actions did not constitute misappropriation. The respondent judge failed to understand the distinction between mutuum and commodatum and mistakenly thought the transactions were commodatum. The criminal complaints against the petitioners were declared null and void.

    Copyright:

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

    Chee Kiong Yam Vs Hon. Malik, G.R. No. L-50550-52 October 31, 1979

    Uploaded by

    Rizchelle Sampang-Manaog
    31 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were not guilty of estafa through misappropriation. Based on the criminal complaints, civil complaints, and sworn statements, the money received from the respondents were loans, not commodatum. In a loan or mutuum, the borrower acquires ownership of the money or property and can dispose of it as they wish. Therefore, the petitioners' actions did not constitute misappropriation. The respondent judge failed to understand the distinction between mutuum and commodatum and mistakenly thought the transactions were commodatum. The criminal complaints against the petitioners were declared null and void.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest - Credit Transactions

    Original Title

    Chee Kiong Yam vs Hon. Malik, G.R. No. L-50550-52 October 31, 1979

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were not guilty of estafa through misappropriation. Based on the criminal complaints, civil complaints, and sworn statements, the money received from the respondents were loans, not commodatum. In a loan or mutuum, the borrower acquires ownership of the money or property and can dispose of it as they wish. Therefore, the petitioners' actions did not constitute misappropriation. The respondent judge failed to understand the distinction between mutuum and commodatum and mistakenly thought the transactions were commodatum. The criminal complaints against the petitioners were declared null and void.

    Copyright:

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

    Chee Kiong Yam Vs Hon. Malik, G.R. No. L-50550-52 October 31, 1979

    Uploaded by

    Rizchelle Sampang-Manaog
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were not guilty of estafa through misappropriation. Based on the criminal complaints, civil complaints, and sworn statements, the money received from the respondents were loans, not commodatum. In a loan or mutuum, the borrower acquires ownership of the money or property and can dispose of it as they wish. Therefore, the petitioners' actions did not constitute misappropriation. The respondent judge failed to understand the distinction between mutuum and commodatum and mistakenly thought the transactions were commodatum. The criminal complaints against the petitioners were declared null and void.

    Copyright:

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

    Chee Kiong Yam vs Hon. Malik, G.R. No.

    L-50550-52 October 31, 1979

    Doctrine: In simple loan (mutuum), as contrasted to commodatum, the borrower acquires ownership of the
    money, goods or personal property borrowed. Being the owner, the borrower can dispose of the thing
    borrowed (Article 248, Civil Code) and his act will not be considered misappropriation thereof.

    Facts: Rosalinda M. Amin charges petitioners Yam Chee Kiong and Yam Yap Kieng with estafa through
    misappropriation of the amount of P50,000.00. But the complaint states on its face that said petitioners
    received the amount from respondent Rosalinda M. Amin "as a loan." An independent action for the collection
    of the same amount filed by respondent Rosalinda M. Amin with the Court of First Instance of Sulu on
    September 11, 1975, likewise states that the P50,000.00 was a "simple business loan" which earned interest
    and was originally demandable six (6) months from July 12, 1973.

    Respondent Tan Chu Kao charges petitioners Yam Chee Kiong, Jose Y.C. Yam, Ampang Mah and Anita Yam,
    alias Yong Tay, with estafa through misappropriation of the amount of P30,000.00. Likewise, the complaint
    states on its face that the P30,000.00 was "a simple loan." So does the complaint in civil case by respondent
    Tan Chu Kao on April 6, 1976 with the Court of First Instance of Sulu for the collection of the same amount.

    Respondent Augusto Sajor charges petitioners Jose Y.C. Yam, Anita Yam alias Yong Tai Mah, Chee Kiong Yam
    and Richard Yam, with estafa through misappropriation of the amount of P20,000.00. Unlike the complaints
    in the other two cases, the complaint does not state that the amount was received as loan. However, in a
    sworn statement dated September 29, 1976, submitted to respondent judge to support the complaint,
    respondent Sajor states that the amount was a "loan."

    Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are guilty with estafa through misappropriation.

    Ruling: No, the petitioners are not guilty with estafa through misappropriation.

    In estafa through misappropriation, it must be proven that he has the obligation to deliver or return the same
    money, goods or personal property that he received. Petitioners had no such obligation to return the same
    money which they received from respondents. This is so because as clearly stated in criminal complaints, the
    related civil complaints and the supporting sworn statements, the sums of money that petitioners received
    were loans.

    In simple loan (mutuum), as contrasted to commodatum, the borrower acquires ownership of the money,
    goods or personal property borrowed. Being the owner, the borrower can dispose of the thing borrowed
    (Article 248, Civil Code) and his act will not be considered misappropriation thereof.

    It appears that respondent judge failed to appreciate the distinction between the two types of loan, mutuum
    and commodatum, when he performed the questioned acts, He mistook the transaction between petitioners
    and respondents Rosalinda Amin, Tan Chu Kao and Augusto Sajor to be commodatum wherein the borrower
    does not acquire ownership over the thing borrowed and has the duty to return the same thing to the lender.

    With respect to the other respondents, this Court is not the proper forum for the consideration of the claim
    for damages against them.

    The petition is hereby granted; the temporary restraining order previously issued is hereby made permanent;
    the criminal complaints against petitioners are hereby declared null and void; respondent judge is hereby
    ordered to dismiss said criminal cases and to recall the warrants of arrest he had issued in connection
    therewith. Moreover, respondent judge is hereby rebuked for manifest ignorance of elementary law.

    You might also like