Short answer. Consumable movables are those that cannot be used as intended without being used up — money, fuel, food. Everything else is nonconsumable. The line is drawn by the nature of the thing, not by its value, and it decides which contracts the thing can lawfully be the object of.
What the law says
Movable property is either consumable or nonconsumable. To the first class belong those movables which cannot be used in a manner appropriate to their nature without their being consumed; to the second class belong all the others.
Civil Code, Article 418 — Consumable and Non-consumable Movables. Read the full provision →
The test is what ordinary use does to the thing
Article 418 divides movables in two: to the first class belong those movables which cannot be used in a manner appropriate to their nature without their being consumed; to the second class belong all the others. The question is not whether a thing can be destroyed but whether using it properly destroys it. Diesel burned in an engine, rice cooked and eaten, money spent — each is used exactly as it was meant to be used, and the using ends it. A bulldozer, a ring or a laptop can be used indefinitely without ceasing to exist, so all three fall in the second class.
Why the classification decides what contract you have
The distinction matters because some agreements require the very same thing to come back. A person who borrows a machine must return that machine; a person who borrows sacks of rice or a sum of money cannot return the same grains or the same notes and must return an equivalent quantity and quality instead. That is not a technicality about wording — the two arrangements carry different risks, because in the second the thing becomes the borrower's and the loss falls on him. The same problem appears wherever someone is given the use of another's property and must eventually hand it back.
Consumable is not the same as perishable or fungible
Three ideas get run together and they are distinct. A car deteriorates and eventually becomes scrap, but no single use consumes it, so it is nonconsumable however perishable it looks. Fungibility is a different axis altogether: it asks whether one unit may be substituted for another, and it depends largely on what the parties intended. Coins are consumable and ordinarily fungible, yet a collector's coin held as a specimen is treated by the parties as unique. Read a contract for what it says the recipient must give back, not for the label somebody attached to the goods.
How to write it so the argument never starts
If you are handing over goods on any basis other than an outright sale, say in the document whether the recipient must return the identical thing or an equivalent, and describe the goods by quantity, grade and condition rather than by name alone. Where the very thing must come back, record its serial or plate number and its state on the day it left you, with photographs. Where an equivalent will do, fix the standard now — same variety, same grade, delivered where and when. Most disputes over borrowed property are really disputes about which of those two deals was struck.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Allied Banking Corporation and Guillermo Dimog vs. Spouses Mario Antonio Macam & Rose Trinidad, G.R. No. 200635, February 1, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- BPI Family Bank vs. Amado Franco, et al, G.R. No. 123498, November 23, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →