In the same sense, our national doctrine, and following the opinions most authorized, professor Luis Bramont-Aryan Towers and Another one, with respect to the protected legally protected interest, illustrates to us indicating that what is protected in this illicit one is the patrimony, but more concretely the property and that in the case of fungible goods the money is protected generally, in addition, a credit right 4. Being then and summarizing what has been said up to here, in words To be accustomed to mentioned by Alberto Donna-, that the author of the illicit one, ” del has received the thing by a title that always comes off the recognition the dominion of otro”. So that the contract bases between the parts is allowed, for that reason this one is a breach of trust, according to affirms the doctrine, by which one of the parts receives a thing, that does not have to be fungible, and it is commited to give back that same thing, after a 5 time . In that order of ideas, and tying the illicit one in comment, with the mutuum contract, the case of a contract of that nature could occur, but celebrated of verbal way, and that in this way is generated disagreements at the time of crediting its existence.