Scribd
Upload
164 views1 page

Osmena-Jalandoni vs. Encomienda G.R. No. 205578, March 1, 2017 Facts

Respondent loaned petitioner various sums of money totaling over $10,000 after petitioner repeatedly asked to borrow money as a friend. When petitioner began avoiding repayment, respondent demanded payment within six weeks. Petitioner refused to pay, claiming the money was given as gifts rather than loans. The RTC dismissed the case but the CA reversed, finding a loan existed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a simple loan was formed when petitioner received money from respondent and was obligated to repay equal amounts, as evidenced by receipts and demand letters retained by respondent.

Uploaded by

Rey Almon Tolentino Alibuyog
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
164 views1 page

Osmena-Jalandoni vs. Encomienda G.R. No. 205578, March 1, 2017 Facts

Respondent loaned petitioner various sums of money totaling over $10,000 after petitioner repeatedly asked to borrow money as a friend. When petitioner began avoiding repayment, respondent demanded payment within six weeks. Petitioner refused to pay, claiming the money was given as gifts rather than loans. The RTC dismissed the case but the CA reversed, finding a loan existed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a simple loan was formed when petitioner received money from respondent and was obligated to repay equal amounts, as evidenced by receipts and demand letters retained by respondent.

Uploaded by

Rey Almon Tolentino Alibuyog
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

OSMENA-JALANDONI vs.

ENCOMIENDA
G.R. No. 205578, March 1, 2017

FACTS:
Respondent narrated that she met petitioner in Cebu when the
former was purchasing a condominium unit and the latter was the
real estate broker. Thereafter, Encomienda and Jalandoni became
close friends. On March 2, 1997, Jalandoni called Encomienda to ask
if she could borrow money. This happened for several occasions. All in
all, Encomienda spent around P3,245,836.02 and $6,638.20 for
Jalandoni.
When Encomienda felt that Jalandoni was starting to avoid her,
the former gave the latter six weeks to settle her debts. Despite several
demands, no payment was made. Jalandoni insisted that the amounts
given were not in the form of loans. Jalandoni said she would talk to
her lawyer first, but she never came back, Hence, Encomienda filed a
complaint for collection of sum of money.
The RTC dismissed the complaint. Upon the other hand, the CA
granted the appeal and reversed the RTC Decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the contract entered into is in the form of loan.
HELD:
Yes. A simple loan or mutuum exists when a person receives a
loan of money or other fungible thing and acquires its ownership. He
is bound to pay to the creditor the equal amount of the same kind and
quality.
In the case at bar, Encomienda immediately offered a helping hand
when a friend asked for it. But this does not mean that she had
already waived her right to collect in the future. Indeed, when
Encomienda felt that Jalandoni was beginning to avoid her, that was
when she realized that she had to protect her right to demand
payment. The fact tha Encomienda kept the receipts even for the
smallest amounts she had advanced, repeatedly sent demand letters,
and immediately filed the instant case when Jalandoni stubbornly
refused to heed her demands sufficiently disproves the latter’s belief
that all the sums of money she received were merely given out of
charity.

You might also like