Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engracia Lavadia Vs Rosario Cosme de Mendoza (GR No L-47996, 9 May 1941, 72 Phil. 196)
Engracia Lavadia Vs Rosario Cosme de Mendoza (GR No L-47996, 9 May 1941, 72 Phil. 196)
jewelry. It ruled that Rosario Cosme de Mendoza has to deliver the jewelries to the plaintiff and one of
the previous owners Engracia. Dissatisfied with the trial courts decision, the defendants appealed the
decision to the Supreme Court.
Issues: These issues were raised by Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her co-defendants,
1. Whether or not the CFI erred in ordering the defendants the jewelrys delivery to the plaintiffs,
even if they did not intend to have the sole ownership and custodianship of the said items?
2. Whether or not that the CFI erred to declare that plaintiffs are entitled to fourth-sixths' (4/6) and
the defendants, only entitled to the two sixths' share of the said jewelries?
3. Whether or not that CFI erred in its failure to declare that defendant-appellant Rosario Cosme
de Mendoza, cannot be deprived of jewels custody and administration except only when she is
incapacitated, when she executed acts contrary to the will of previous owners?
4. Whether or not that Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, being the jewelrys possessor and custodian,
faithfully performed her duties?
5. Whether or not the CFI erred in denying her petition for a new trial?
Held by the Supreme Court:
The Court affirmed a quo the CFI Lagunas decision on appeal, seeing that it did not commit any error
in its judgment, and the defendant-appellants are to pay the costs of suit.
It is uncontested that in proportion to each one's interest, all of the parties has ownership and need to
contribute equally a share in the costs of the administration and preservation of the jewelries, as
required by Article 393 of the Old Civil Code. Therefore, the CFI was right in concluding that the
appellees have fourth-sixths (4/6) and appellants two-sixths (2/6) share.
The Court ruled that based on the facts above, there was clearly a contract of deposit among the parties,
including Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, as deemed in Article 1758 of the Old Civil Code. Moreover, it
was ruled that even among common owners of a thing, one of them may have its custody (as
depositary), and the depositary is subjected to the same obligations under the law with respect to the
conservation of the thing with the care, diligence and interest of a good father. Thus, Rosarios
argument was rejected in proposition that the deposited jewelries cannot be withdrawn from her
administration and custody by the plaintiffs, since in a contract of deposit, a depositor can withdraw the
thing deposited from its depositary like in circumstances when the depositary performed acts against
the orders of the depositor and his/her heirs.
SO ORDERED.
Justices Imperial, Laurel, Moran and Horrilleno, concurring.