Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L- No!e"be# $%& $'($
MANUEL GARC)A GA*)ERES& plaintiff-appellant&
!s.
T.+. PAR,O ,E TA*ERA& -efen-ant-appellee.
E.M. Llanos& fo# appellant.
Si"plicio -el Rosa#io& fo# appellee.

COOPER& ../
The p#esent appeal has been inte#pose- in the -ecla#ati!e action of 0#eate# i"po#t file- in
the Cou#t of 1i#st )nstance of Ton-o& co""ence- on .anua#2 $(& $'((& b2 ,on Manuel
Ga#cia Ga!ie#es as plaintiff an- successo# in inte#est of the -ecease- ,o3a )0nacia -e
Go##icho a0ainst ,on T#ini-a- +. Pa#-o -e Ta!e#a as uni!e#sal hei# of the -ecease- ,on
1eli4 Pa#-o -e Ta!e#a fo# the collection of a balance of $&%56 pesos 78 cents& #e"ainin0
-ue on an o#i0inal obli0ation of 6&((( pesos 9hich& as the plaintiff alle0es& 9as the
a"ount of a -eposit -eli!e#e- b2 ,o3a )0nacia Go##icho& -ecease-& to ,on 1eli4 Pa#-o
-e Ta!e#a& -ecease-& on the 6$st -a2 of Octobe#& $:8'. The a0#ee"ent bet9een the pa#ties
appea#s in the follo9in0 9#itin0/
Recei!e- of Se3o#ita )0nacia -e Go##icho the su" of 6&((( pesos& 0ol- ;6&((( pesos<& as a
-eposit pa2able on t9o "onths= notice in a-!ance& 9ith inte#est at pe# cent pe# annu"
9ith an h2pothecation of the 0oo-s no9 o9ne- b2 "e o# 9hich "a2 be o9ne- he#eafte#&
as secu#it2 of the pa2"ent.
)n 9itness 9he#eof ) si0n in Binon-o& .anua#2 6$& $:8'.la9phil.net
1EL)> PAR,O ,E TA*ERA.
The -efen-ant ans9e#in0 co"plaint of plaintiff alle0es a"on0 othe# thin0s as a -efense&
that the -ocu"ent upon 9hich the co"plaint is base- 9as not a cont#act of -eposit as
alle0e- in the co"plaint& but a cont#act of loan& an- settin0 fo#th fu#the#"o#e the pa2"ent
of the o#i0inal obli0ation as 9ell as the p#esc#iption of the action. The -efen-ant conten-s
that the -ocu"ent upon 9hich the action is base- is not e!i-ence of a -eposit& as the
plaintiff "aintains& but of a cont#act of loan& an- that the p#esc#iption applicable to loans
has e4tin0uishe- the #i0ht of action. Althou0h in the -ocu"ent in ?uestion a -eposit is
spo@en of& ne!e#theless f#o" an e4a"ination of the enti#e -ocu"ent it clea#l2 appea#s
that the cont#act 9as a loan an- that such 9as the intention of the pa#ties. )t is
unnecessa#2 to #ecu# to the canons of inte#p#etation to a##i!e at this conclusion. The
obli0ation of the -eposita#2 to pa2 inte#est at the #ate of pe# cent to the -eposito#
suffices to cause the obli0ation to be consi-e#e- as a loan an- "a@es it li@e9ise e!i-ent
that it 9as the intention of the pa#ties that the -eposita#2 shoul- ha!e the #i0ht to "a@e
use of the a"ount -eposite-& since it 9as sti"ulate- that the a"ount coul- be collecte-
afte# notice of t9o "onths in a-!ance. Such bein0 the case& the cont#act lost the cha#acte#
of a -eposit an- ac?ui#e- that of a loan. ;A#t. $7:& Ci!il Co-e.<
All pe#sonal actions& such as those 9hich a#ise f#o" a cont#act of loan& cease to ha!e
le0al effect afte# t9ent2 2ea#s acco#-in0 to the fo#"e# la9 an- afte# fifteen 2ea#s
acco#-in0 to the Ci!il Co-e no9 in fo#ce. The -ate of the -ocu"ent is .anua#2 6$& $:8'.
The p#oof of pa2"ent in suppo#t of the -efense 9e consi-e# li@e9ise sufficient to
establish such -efense. The -ocu"ent -ate- .anua#2 :& $:'& e4ecute- b2 ,on 1eli4
Ga#cia Ga!ie#es& husban- an- le0al #ep#esentati!e of ,o3a )0nacia Go##icho&
ac@no9le-0es the #eceipt of $&55% pesos f#o" ,on Manuel ,a#!in& #ep#esentati!e of the
-ecease- ,on 1eli4 Pa#-o -e Ta!e#a. This su" is -ecla#e- in sai- -ocu"ent to be the
balance -ue upon the -ebt of 5&((( pesos. This 9as sli0htl2 "o#e o# less the a"ount
9hich #e"aine- as -ue upon the o#i0inal obli0ation afte# -e-uctin0 the pa2"ent 9hich
a#e a-"itte- to ha!e been "a-e. )n the absence of e!i-ence -isclosin0 that the#e 9e#e
othe# clai"s in fa!o# of Ga!ie#es it is #easonabl2 to be suppose- that this pa2"ent 9as
"a-e to satisf2 the balance -ue upon the o#i0inal obli0ation.
The o#i0inal cont#act bet9een the pa#ties 9as celeb#ate- nea#l2 a half centu#2 a0oA the
cont#actin0 pa#ties ha!e cease- to e4ist lon0 sinceA it "a2 be that the#e e4ists o# "a2 ha!e
e4iste- -ocu"ents p#o!in0 a total pa2"ent bet9een the pa#ties an- that this -ocu"ent
has so"e ti"e a0o suffe#e- the co""on fate of pe#ishable thin0s. +e 9ho b2 laches in
the e4e#cise of his #i0hts has cause- a failu#e of p#oof has no #i0ht to co"plain if the cou#t
-oes not appl2 the st#ict #ules of e!i-ence 9hich a#e applicable in o#-ina#2 cases& an-
a-"its to a ce#tain e4tent the p#esu"ption to 9hich the con-uct of the inte#est pa#t2
hi"self natu#all2 0i!es #ise.
)t is ou# opinion that the Bu-0"ent of the Cou#t of 1i#st )nstance shoul- be affi#"e-& an-
it is so o#-e#e-& 9ith costs of appeal ta4e- a0ainst the appellant.
A#ellano& C...& To##es& Cilla#-& an- Mapa& ...& concu#.
La--& ..& -i- not sit in this case.