Short answer. No, not a simple loan. A loan of goods works only with interchangeable things and is repaid in the same kind, quantity and quality. Where what is handed over is not interchangeable, the Civil Code treats the arrangement as barter, and swapping one kind of goods for another is an exchange rather than a loan.
What the law says
A contract whereby one person transfers the ownership of non-fungible things to another with the obligation on the part of the latter to give things of the same kind, quantity, and quality shall be considered a barter.
Civil Code, Article 1954 — Non-Fungibles for Fungibles Is Barter. Read the full provision →
What the article says
Article 1954 provides that A contract whereby one person transfers the ownership of non-fungible things to another with the obligation on the part of the latter to give things of the same kind, quantity, and quality shall be considered a barter. Two phrases carry the meaning. Transfers the ownership tells you the goods are gone for good; the other side is not returning the very same items. Non-fungible means the thing is not simply interchangeable with others of its type. Where both are true, the Code declines to treat the deal as a loan, whatever the parties themselves called it.
Interchangeable, or not
A fungible thing can be replaced by another of the same kind and quality without anyone being worse off — a sack of rice, a litre of fuel, a sum of money. Lend a neighbour a sack of rice and the sack that comes back need not be the sack you gave. A non-fungible thing is valued for itself: a particular carabao, a specific machine, a piece of jewellery. What matters is not the label the market puts on the goods but whether, in your actual arrangement, one unit really is as good as another. Where it is not, you are exchanging rather than lending.
Why the label matters
Calling the deal barter is not a technicality. In a loan you owe a return of the same kind, and questions of interest and repayment terms arise. In barter each side is at once giving and receiving property, so each is treated much like a seller of what he handed over, and the Code's rules on exchange — which draw on the rules governing sales — come into play. That affects who answers if the goods turn out defective, or if someone else appears claiming to own them. It also affects how the transaction is documented and how a transfer of property is taxed, so it is worth getting right at the start.
Setting it down properly
Where goods are being swapped, write down what each side is giving, in what quantity and of what quality, when and where delivery happens, and who bears the loss if something is destroyed in transit. Vague descriptions cause nearly all the trouble: good quality rice means one thing to the person handing it over and another to the person receiving it. If one side delivers and the other does not, the remedy is an ordinary civil claim, and what you recover will depend on what you can prove was promised. Take advice before committing to anything substantial, since claims carry time limits.