Title
Osmena-Jalandoni vs. Encomienda
Case
G.R. No. 205578
Decision Date
Mar 1, 2017
A close friend lent significant sums for personal expenses, claiming loans; court ruled repayment required due to unjust enrichment, affirming oral loan validity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205578)

Key Dates

• October 24, 1995 – Encomienda meets Jalandoni in Cebu.
• March 2, 1997 – First cash advance of ₱100,000.00.
• April 1, 1997 – Loan of ₱1,000,000.00.
• May 26, 1997 – Additional loan of ₱900,000.00.
• August 14, 1997 – Extrajudicial demand for repayment.
• January 9, 2006 – RTC, Branch 57, Cebu City dismisses Encomienda’s complaint.
• March 29, 2012 – Court of Appeals reverses RTC and awards sums advanced.
• March 1, 2017 – Supreme Court issues final decision under the 1987 Constitution.

Procedural History

Encomienda filed a complaint for sum of money in the RTC after barangay conciliation failed. The trial court dismissed her claim for lack of evidence of a loan agreement. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered Jalandoni to pay ₱3,245,836.02, US$6,638.20, interest at 12% per annum from August 14, 1997, and attorney’s fees of ₱100,000.00. Jalandoni’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the instant petition for review.

Factual Background and Claims

Encomienda contends she delivered money and paid numerous bills—ranging from publication costs, reproduction of photos, plane fare, household salaries, to utility and communication bills—totaling approximately ₱3.245 million and US$6,638.20 between March and November 1997. She claims these disbursements were loans to Jalandoni, who promised reimbursement upon maturity of her bank deposits. Jalandoni denies any loan arrangement, characterizing the funds as gratuitous assistance; she further asserts many payments were made without her knowledge or against her will.

Legal Issue

Whether respondent Encomienda is entitled to reimbursement for the amounts she advanced to petitioner Jalandoni.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution – governs judicial review.
• Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386)
– Article 1236: “Whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that if he paid without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can recover only insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor.”
– Article 22 (Unjust Enrichment): A person unjustly benefits at another’s expense if he retains money or property in contravention of justice and good conscience.
• Jurisprudence on oral loans and unjust enrichment (Spouses Tan v. Villapaz, Spouses Publico v. Bautista, Filinvest Land, Inc. v. Backy).
• Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, Series of 2013 – governs post-2013 interest adjustments.

Analysis on Existence of Loan

The Court confirmed that loans need not be in writing to be valid. Parties may enter into a verbal mutuum provided essential requisites—consent, object, and cause—are present. The absence of promissory notes or acknowledgment receipts is consistent with loans between friends. Jalandoni’s repeated acceptance and use of the funds (including personal and household expenses) belied her assertion of ignorance or objection. Her failure to protest or return benefits upon learning of the payments implied consent to a debt.

Application of Article 1236

Even if certain disbursements were made without express authorization, Article 1236 allows recovery of payments that inured to the benefit of the debtor. Jalandoni derived substantial benefit from Encomienda’s payments—fuel, utilities, security services, le

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.