General information only; not legal advice.

1) The core issue: money was sent—was it a loan, a gift, or something else?

In Philippine law, a person is obligated to repay money received only if there is a legal basis to treat the transfer as a repayable obligation. Between romantic partners (or ex-partners), the same money transfer can legally be characterized in several ways:

Loan (mutuum) — money was given with an agreement (express or implied) that it will be repaid.
Donation / gift — money was given out of liberality, with no expectation of repayment.
Support / allowance / help — voluntarily given for living expenses (not a legal “support” duty between unmarried partners, but still can be a non-repayable voluntary benefit depending on intent).
Shared expenses / reimbursement — money sent to pay common bills or to reimburse prior spending.
Money for a purpose (agency/entrustment) — e.g., “buy this,” “pay my rent,” “process documents,” where the issue is accounting or return of unused funds, not “repayment of a loan.”
Payment by mistake (solutio indebiti) — money was sent to the wrong person/account or sent under a mistaken belief; repayment is framed as return of what was not due.
Investment / property contribution — funds used to acquire property or build something; the remedy may be co-ownership, reimbursement, or trust-type claims depending on facts.

No written contract does not automatically mean “no repayment.” In the Philippines, many contracts—including loans—can be valid even if oral. The fight is usually about proof and intent.

2) If it was a loan: what makes an oral loan enforceable?

2.1 A loan of money can be valid even without writing

A simple loan (mutuum) is generally perfected by delivery—once the borrower receives the money, the obligation to repay can exist if that was the agreement. Writing is not typically required for the existence of the loan.

2.2 What the lender must prove

In a collection case, the ex-partner claiming repayment usually must prove (by preponderance of evidence) at least:

Delivery/receipt of the money (e-wallet/bank proof is strong here), and
That it was delivered as a loan (i.e., there was an agreement—express or implied—to repay), plus
The amount and, if claimed, the due date/terms.

Important: Proof of transfer alone proves money changed hands; it does not automatically prove it was a loan rather than a gift or support. Courts look for indicators of a repayable agreement.

2.3 Evidence that commonly proves “loan” between partners

Messages using loan language: “utang,” “hiram,” “pautang,” “pay me back,” “bayaran mo,” “due date,” “installment,” “interest,” “promissory,” etc.
Acknowledgments: “I will pay on ___,” “I owe you ___,” “I’ll send payment next payday.”
Payment behavior: partial repayments, repeated “extensions,” requests for more time (often treated as implied admission of debt).
Transfer descriptions/notes: “loan,” “advance to be repaid,” “IOU,” etc.
Pattern and context: one-time large transfer for a borrower’s need with later repayment discussions looks more like a loan than routine “allowance” transfers during a relationship.

3) If it was a gift/donation: when there is no repayment obligation

3.1 The key element is intent: animus donandi

A donation/gift requires intent to give out of generosity, without expectation of return. Between partners, gifts are common (birthdays, rent help, emergencies), and intent is often shown through messages like:

“Gift,” “tulong,” “para sa’yo,” “no need to pay back,” “advance gift,” “treat yourself,” etc.

3.2 Formalities matter—but don’t assume they automatically create repayment

Under the Civil Code rules on donations of movable property (money is movable):

Small gifts can be valid even informally.
If the value exceeds a statutory threshold (commonly discussed as ₱5,000), donation and acceptance must be in writing; otherwise void under the Civil Code’s donation form rules.

Practical effect in disputes:

The recipient may argue: “It was a gift; no repayment.”
The sender may respond: “If it was a gift, it wasn’t in proper form; therefore return it.”

Courts do not treat every defective “gift” argument as an automatic win for the sender. Outcomes turn heavily on equity, intent, and the surrounding circumstances, because:

A person who voluntarily gave money during a relationship may face credibility problems claiming it was a loan after the breakup if the communications look like generosity/support.
If there was truly no meeting of minds for a loan, courts may resist rewriting the parties’ relationship as a debtor-creditor arrangement.

3.3 Revocation of donations (limited and fact-sensitive)

Even a true donation is not always irrevocable—there are Civil Code grounds (e.g., specified forms of “ingratitude,” non-fulfillment of conditions). But revocation is not automatic, often requires judicial action, and depends on strict factual/legal requisites. This is rarely a clean shortcut in ordinary “ex wants money back” scenarios.

4) “It wasn’t a loan, it was support/allowance/help” — where this fits legally

Between unmarried partners, there is usually no statutory duty of support like between spouses or parents/children. Still, people commonly send money as:

allowance,
emergency help,
payment of rent/food/medicine,
“just because.”

If the evidence shows the sender’s intent was to help without repayment, the transfer can be treated as non-repayable—even if morally the sender later regrets it.

A common litigation pattern is:

Sender: “I sent money; therefore you owe me.”
Recipient: “You sent money voluntarily during the relationship for support/help; there was no agreement to repay.”

This becomes a fact question answered by messages, pattern of transfers, and credibility.

5) Money sent “for a purpose” (not a loan): accounting and return of unused funds

Some transfers are neither loan nor gift, such as:

“Pay my tuition/bill with this,”
“Buy me a phone,”
“Process documents,”
“Hold this money for me,”
“Use this as downpayment for a thing we’re buying together.”

If the recipient:

did not use the money for the stated purpose,
used it for a different purpose without authority,
or has unspent remainder, then the claim may be framed as return of funds / accounting / unjust enrichment, not “repayment of a loan.”

6) Quasi-contract and unjust enrichment: when repayment can exist even without a “loan agreement”

Philippine civil law recognizes situations where a person must return benefits even without a contract, to prevent unjust enrichment.

6.1 Payment by mistake (solutio indebiti)

If the sender can show the money was delivered by mistake—for example:

wrong recipient,
duplicate transfer,
sent under a mistaken belief of obligation, then the recipient may be obligated to return it.

6.2 Unjust enrichment (general equitable principle)

If one party is enriched at another’s expense without legal justification, the law may provide a basis to recover. This is highly fact-dependent and often overlaps with purpose-based transfers and defective agreements.

7) Interest, penalties, and “extra charges” without a written agreement

7.1 Interest is especially strict

In Philippine law, interest on a loan generally must be expressly stipulated in writing to be collectible as agreed interest. Without that written stipulation:

The lender may still collect principal if the loan is proven.
The lender may not be able to collect contractual interest.
In case of delay after demand, courts may award legal interest as damages (rate depends on prevailing rules and may change over time).

7.2 Attorney’s fees and collection add-ons are not automatic

Collectors often demand “10% attorney’s fees” or “collection fees.” These usually require:

a contractual basis and/or
court approval based on law and equities. They are frequently reduced or disallowed when unsupported.

8) Burden of proof and how courts decide “loan vs gift” between ex-partners

8.1 Who has the burden?

Generally:

The party claiming repayment must prove there is a repayable obligation.
The party asserting it was a gift/support may present evidence to rebut loan claims.

8.2 What judges tend to weigh heavily

Contemporaneous messages at the time money was sent (not “after breakup” narratives).
Whether there was any demand for repayment before the relationship ended.
Whether there were repayments, even partial.
The parties’ financial dynamics (regular allowances vs exceptional emergency transfers).
Credibility: inconsistent stories, exaggerated claims, missing documentation.

9) Common defenses and counter-arguments (both sides)

9.1 If you are being asked to repay

Typical defenses include:

No agreement to repay; it was a gift/help.
Money was for shared expenses or the sender’s own benefit.
The amount demanded includes unlawful interest/fees not agreed in writing.
Payment already made (prove with receipts, transfer records).
The claim is prescribed (time-barred), depending on whether the alleged contract was oral or written and when the cause of action accrued.
The sender is using harassment or threats; ordinary nonpayment of debt is civil, not criminal.

9.2 If you are the sender seeking repayment

Common responses include:

Present proof it was a loan (messages, acknowledgments, repayment behavior).
If money was sent for a purpose, frame it as return of funds / accounting.
If sent by mistake, frame it as solutio indebiti.
Issue a clear written demand setting out amount, basis, and computation (and preserve proof of receipt).

10) Procedure: what a real legal case usually looks like in the Philippines

10.1 Demand letter and documentation

A written demand is not always strictly required for every type of claim, but it is commonly used to:

document default,
trigger delay (important for interest/damages),
and show good faith.

10.2 Where it gets filed

Many straightforward money claims are pursued through:

Small claims (if within the threshold and appropriate), or
Regular civil actions for collection.

Small claims are designed for simpler, document-driven disputes—exact requirements and thresholds can change via court issuances, but the core point is that evidence quality (transfers + messages) often decides the case.

10.3 Criminal threats are often bluff

Nonpayment of a simple loan is generally not a criminal offense. Criminal exposure usually arises only from separate wrongful acts (e.g., fraud/deceit at the time money was obtained, bouncing checks, identity theft). Threats of “automatic arrest” for ordinary unpaid debt are a red flag.

11) Special relationship contexts that can change analysis

11.1 If you lived together (common-law/cohabitation)

If the parties cohabited and pooled resources, money transfers may be argued as:

contributions to a shared household,
shared property acquisition,
or reimbursement claims under property relations principles for cohabiting partners.

11.2 If money was used to buy property titled in one person’s name

The dispute may shift from “repay my money” to:

“recognize my contribution,”
partition/co-ownership claims,
or trust-type claims (highly fact-specific and evidence-heavy).

12) Key points to remember

No written loan agreement does not automatically defeat repayment, because loans can be oral and proven by conduct and messages.
A transfer alone does not automatically prove a loan; courts look for evidence of an agreement to repay.
Gifts/support/help are common between partners, and if intent shows generosity without repayment, repayment may not be ordered.
Interest generally needs a written stipulation; without it, claims often narrow to principal (plus possible legal interest as damages after demand).
The strongest cases—either for repayment or for non-repayment—are built on contemporaneous electronic evidence (chat logs, transfer notes, acknowledgments) and a consistent story.