Short answer. Under Article 1933 of the Civil Code, commodatum is essentially gratuitous. If you charge a fee for the use of your property, the arrangement is no longer a commodatum — it becomes something else, such as a lease. The gratuitous character is of the essence of a commodatum.
What the law says
Commodatum is essentially gratuitous.
Civil Code, Article 1933 — Loan: Commodatum and Mutuum. Read the full provision →
What a commodatum is
Article 1933 of the Civil Code defines commodatum as a contract where one party delivers something not consumable to another so that the other may use it for a certain time and then return it. Furniture, a vehicle, a house, or equipment are typical objects of commodatum. The bailor — the lender — keeps ownership of the thing throughout; ownership does not pass to the borrower. The borrower simply has a right to use the thing for the agreed purpose and period, after which it must be returned.
The essential gratuitousness of commodatum
Article 1933 provides without qualification: Commodatum is essentially gratuitous. This is not a default that can be changed by agreement — it is an element of the contract's identity. If the bailor charges the borrower for the use, the arrangement is no longer a commodatum by definition. The civil law tradition treats the gratuitous character as constitutive of the contract. You can lend property for free and have a commodatum; you can lend it for a fee and have a lease or some other contract — but you cannot have a compensated commodatum, because compensation removes the contract from that category.
Commodatum compared to simple loan
Article 1933 places commodatum alongside simple loan — mutuum — under the general category of loan contracts. The difference is what is lent: commodatum involves non-consumable things returned as themselves; mutuum involves money or other consumable things where an equivalent is returned. Unlike commodatum, simple loan may be gratuitous or may carry a stipulation to pay interest. So if you lend cash with an agreement to pay interest, that is valid mutuum. If you charge for the use of a non-consumable thing, you are outside commodatum entirely and in a different contractual arrangement.
Why the distinction matters
The legal consequences of a commodatum differ from those of a lease or other compensated arrangement. A commodatum is generally revocable at the will of the bailor if no fixed period was agreed upon — the bailor retains ownership and a degree of control. A lease for compensation creates different rights: the lessee's possession may be more stable and the lessor's ability to demand return of the property may be constrained by the agreed term. Knowing which contract governs your arrangement determines the rights and obligations of both parties, including what happens if the thing is damaged, lost, or used beyond its intended purpose.
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.
- Roberto L. Yupangco and Regina y De Ocampo vs. O.J. Development and Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 242074, November 10, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Raquel Estipona (Lelandlord E. Sto. Domingo) and Sps. Alberto Co and Lulu Co, G.R. No. 207407, September 29, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rex Sorongon vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 230669, June 16, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Atty. Leonardo Florent O. Bulatao vs. Zenaida C. Estonactoc, G.R. No. 235020, December 10, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →