Ask your own question →
This page answers the general question. Deep Synthesis answers yours, with citations.

Answer

Both are contracts of loan, but they differ in object and effect. In commodatum the lender delivers a non-consumable thing so that the borrower may use it for a time, free of charge, and return the very same thing; ownership stays with the lender and the contract is essentially gratuitous (Civil Code Articles 1933 and 1935). In mutuum — a simple loan — the lender delivers money or another consumable thing, ownership passes to the borrower, and the borrower must return an equal amount of the same kind and quality, not the identical thing (Articles 1933 and 1953).

A further consequence follows from this distinction: a commodatum is by nature gratuitous, whereas a mutuum may be with or without interest — but any interest must be expressly stipulated in writing to be demandable (Article 1956).

Sources & further reading

Cases on this topic

Related questions

Ask your own question →
This page answers the general question. Deep Synthesis answers yours, with citations.
Read the full report →
Research aid — not legal advice. Verify the current text against the Official Gazette. Provisions may have been amended or repealed. Using this page creates no attorney-client relationship. For legal advice, consult a Philippine lawyer.