Garcia vs Thio Case Digest

2. Garcia vs Thio 16 March 2007 J. Corona FACTS:

Petitioner  – Garcia Respondent  – Thio -

-

In February 1995, 1995, Thio received from Garcia a crossed check amounting amounting to $100,000 payable payable to the order of Marilou Santiago. Garcia the received from Thio $3,000 for 4 months and P76,500 on July, August, o September and October (Representing interest due) In June 1995, Thio received again from Garcia P500,000 Garcia the received from Thio P20,000 on August, September October and November. o (Represent interest due) According to Garcia, Thio failed to pay the $100,000 and P500,000 amount opting him to file a case for sum of money and damages. Both loans are not covered by a promissory note as the two are close friends Thio countered that it was Marilou Santiago whom the money was lent by Garcia. She issued the checks checks for P76,000 and P20,000 not as payment payment of interest but to accommodate accommodate petitioner’s request that respondent use her own checks instead of Santiago

-

RTC ruled in favor of Garcia CA reversed RTC.

ISSUE: 1. Who borrowed the money (Santiago or Thio) HELD: 1. Thio

RATIO:

-

-

A loan is a real contract as it is perfected upon delivery of the object. This is different from a consensual contract which only requires consent. An accepted promise to deliver by way of commodatum or simple loan is binding upon parties, however, the loan itself is only perfected upon delivery of the object. Petitioner insisted that it was upon respondent’s instruction that both checks were made payable to Santiago. o It was also argued that upon delivery of the checks, respondents acquired control and possession of it and can choose to retain or delivery it to Santiago Factors that supported the conclusions are: o Petitioner did not know Santiago personally o Leticia Ruiz (friend of both petitioner and respondent) testified that the plan of Thio is to borrow money from Garcia then subsequently lend it out to Santiago. o for the US$100,000 loan, respondent admitted issuing her own checks in the amount of P76,000 each (peso equivalent of US$3,000) for eight months to cover

the monthly interest. For the P500,000 loan, she also issued her own checks in the amount of P20,000 each for four months. She claimed, however, that Santiago would replace the checks with cash. Her explanation is simply incredible. It is difficult to believe that respondent would put herself in a position where she would be compelled to pay interest, from her own funds, for loans she allegedly did not contract. In the petition of insolvency filed by Santiago, the one listed as creditor is Thio rather than Garcia. No corroborative evidence was presented by Thio 

o

o