C-07

US v. Igpuara (1913)

1978

Permission to Use thing deposited Effect of failure to claim at ounce or delay will it convert the agreement to a loan?

The defendant Jose Igpuara was entrusted with the amount of P2,498 by Montilla and Veraguth. Without the consent of Montilla and Veraguth however, Igpuara used the said amount for his own ends. Thus, Igpuara was charged and convicted with estafa, for having swindled Juana Montilla and Eugenio Veraguth out of P2,498 which he had taken as deposit from the former to be at the his disposal. Igpuara was sentenced to pay Juana Montilla P2,498 . The instrument for the deposit reads: We hold at the disposal of Eugenio Veraguth the sum of two thousand four hundred and ninety-eight pesos (P2,498), the balance from Juana Montilla's sugar. Iloilo, June 26, 1911, Jose Igpuara, for Ramirez and Co Igpuara contended that the amount was not deposit for there was no certificate of deposit, there was no transfer or delivery of the P2,498 and what transpired was a loan. If assuming that it was deposit, this is negotiable.

WON it is necessary that there be transfer or delivery in order to constitute a deposit. WON failure to demand or claim at ounce constitute CONSENT for Igpuara to USE the money deposited.

His contention is without merit because firstly, the defendant drew up a document declaring that they remained in his possession. With the understanding that he would, for it has no other purpose. The certificate of deposit in question is not negotiable because only instruments payable to order are negotiable. Hence, this instrument not being to order but to bearer, it is not negotiable. As for the argument that the depositary may use or dispose oft he things deposited, the depositor's consent is required thus, the rights and obligations of the depositary and of the depositor shall cease and the rules and provisions applicable to commercial loans, commission, or contract which took the place of the deposit shall be observed. Igpuara however has shown no authorization whatsoever or the consent of the depositary for using or disposing of the P2,498. That there was not demand on the same or the next day after the certificate was signed, does not operate against the depositor, or signify anything except the intention not to press it. Failure to claim at once or delay for sometime in demanding restitution of the things deposited, which was immediately due, does not imply such permission to use the thing deposited as would convert the deposit into a loan. Judgment appealed from is affirmed