Jose Grijaldo obtained five loans from the branch office of the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd in the total

sum of
P1,281.97 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, compounded quarterly.

To secure the payment of the loans the appellant executed a chattel mortgage on the standing crops
on his land, Lot No. 1494 known as Hacienda Campugas in Hinigiran, Negros Occidental.

These loans are evidenced by five promissory notes executed by the appellant in favor of the Bank
of Taiwan, Ltd:
June 1, 1943, P600.00
June 3, 1943, P159.11
June 18, 1943, P22.86
August 9, 1943,P300.00
August 13, 1943, P200.00

Vesting Order No. P-4, dated January 21, 1946, and under the authority provided for in the Trading
with the Enemy Act, as amended, the assets in the Philippines of the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd. were
vested in the Government of the United States.

Pursuant to the Philippine Property Act of 1946 of the United States, these assets, including the
loans in question, were subsequently transferred to the Republic of the Philippines by the
Government of the United States under Transfer Agreement dated July 20, 1954.

These assets were among the properties that were placed under the administration of the Board of
Liquidators created under Executive Order No. 372, dated November 24, 1950, and in accordance
with Republic Acts Nos. 8 and 477 and other pertinent laws.

The appellee, Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Chairman of the Board of Liquidators,
made a written extrajudicial demand upon the appellant for the payment of the account in question.
The record shows that the appellant had actually received the written demand for payment, but he
failed to pay.

The aggregate amount due as principal of the five loans in question, computed under the Ballantyne
scale of values as of the time that the loans were incurred in 1943, was P889.64; and the interest
due thereon at the rate of 6% per annum compounded quarterly, computed as of December 31,
1959 was P2,377.23.

RULING:

appellant likewise maintains, in support of his contention that the appellee has no cause of action,
that because the loans were secured by a chattel mortgage on the standing crops on a land owned
by him and these crops were lost or destroyed through enemy action his obligation to pay the loans
was thereby extinguished.

Object of the mortgage daw was lost kaya extinguish pero sc disagreed

The transaction between the appellant and the Bank of Taiwan, Ltd. was a series of five contracts of
simple loan of sums of money. "By a contract of (simple) loan, one of the parties delivers to another
... money or other consumable thing upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and
quality shall be paid." (Article 1933, Civil Code) The obligation of the appellant under the five
promissory notes evidencing the loans in questions is to pay the value thereof; that is, to deliver a
sum of money — a clear case of an obligation to deliver, a generic thing. Article 1263 of the Civil
Code provides:
People v Puig and Porras

Cashier and Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc., Pototan, Iloilo,
without the knowledge and/or consent of the management of the Bank
Fiduciary relationship hence abused trust and confidence..

Defendant contends that there is no qualified theft since the money is not
owned by the bank, hence, no element of taking said money without owner’s
consent..

Petitioner also insists that the Informations sufficiently allege all the elements
of the crime of qualified theft, citing that a perusal of the Informations will show
that they specifically allege that the respondents were the Cashier and
Bookkeeper of the Rural Bank of Pototan, Inc., respectively, and that they
took various amounts of money with grave abuse of confidence, and without
the knowledge and consent of the bank, to the damage and prejudice of the
bank.

In summary, the Bank acquires ownership of the money deposited by its

clients; and the employees of the Bank, who are entrusted with the
possession of money of the Bank due to the confidence reposed in them,
occupy positions of confidence. The Informations, therefore, sufficiently allege
all the essential elements constituting the crime of Qualified Theft.
BPI v Franco

80M from FMIC deposited to Tevesco. Then, allegedly that 37m of 80m was forged. 2M of
which was credited to Franco as facilitation fee of the business transaction of tevesco and franco.

Garnishment of Franco’s Deposit

Denied Release of Funds Upon Demand pursuant to RTC order of Garnishment
Suspected that the funds were part of the scam.

SC Held that it being a bank deposit, it is a contract of mutuum. Hence be release upon demand

CIFC v CA

CIFC is a quasi-bank engaged in MONEY MARKET. Alegre invested 500k pesos with
promissory note.

Loan matured. Hence a check was issued by CIFC in favor of Alegre. Upon drawing the checks
were retained as it were subject to investigation due to several counterfeit checks.

In the case at bar, the money market transaction between the petitioner and the private
respondent is in the nature of a loan. The private respondent accepted the CHECK, instead of
requiring payment in money. Yet, when he presented it to RCBC for encashment, as early as June
17, 1991, the same was dishonored by non-acceptance, with BPIs annotation: Check (is) subject
of an investigation. These facts were testified to by BPIs manager. Under these circumstances, and
after the notice of dishonor,[12] the holder has an immediate right of recourse against the
drawer,[13] and consequently could immediately file an action for the recovery of the value of the
check.
In a loan transaction, the obligation to pay a sum certain in money may be paid in money,
which is the legal tender or, by the use of a check. A check is not a legal tender, and therefore
cannot constitute valid tender of payment.