QUINTOS and ANSALDO vs.

BECK
FACTS:
The BECK (defendant) was a tenant of Quintos and Ansaldo (plaintiff) and occupied the
plaintiff's house on M. H. del Pilar street, No. 1175. On January 14, 1936, upon the novation of the
contract of lease between the plaintiff and the defendant, Quintos and Ansaldo gratuitously granted to
Beck the use of the furniture subject to the condition that the Beck would return the furniture upon
their demand.

Quintos and Ansaldo sold the property to Maria Lopez and Rosario Lopez. These three notified
Beck of the conveyance, giving him 60 days to vacate the premises under one of the clauses of the
contract of lease. There after the plaintiff required Beck to return all the furniture transferred to him
for his use. Beck answered that she may call for them in the house where they are found.

On November 5, 1936, Beck wrote to the plaintiff reiterating that she may call for the
furniture in the ground floor of the house. On the 7th of the same month, Beck wrote another letter to
the plaintiff informing her that he could not give up the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps
because he would use them until the 15th of the same month when the lease is due to expire.

Quintos and Ansaldo refused to get the furniture in view of the fact that the defendant had
declined to make delivers of all of them. before vacating the house, Beck deposited with the Sheriff all
the furniture belonging to the plaintiff and they are now on deposit in the warehouse in the custody of
the said sheriff.

Quintos and Ansaldo brought an action to compel the Beck to return the furniture which they
lent to Beck for his use. They appealed from the judgment of the CFI of Manila. The plaintiffs contend
that the trial court incorrectly applied the law.

ISSUE:
WON the contract between the parties was a contract of commodatum.
WON Beck is bound to bear the deposit fees.
WON Beck is entitled to the cost of litigations.
HELD:
(1)
Yes. The contract entered into between the parties is one of commodatum, because the plaintiff
gratuitously granted the use of the furniture to the defendant, reserving for herself the ownership
thereof; by this contract the defendant bound himself to return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon
the latter’s demand.
The obligation voluntarily assumed by the defendant to return the furniture upon the plaintiff's
demand, means that he should return all of them to the plaintiff at the latter's residence or house. The
defendant did not comply with this obligation when he merely placed them at the disposal of the
plaintiff, retaining for his benefit the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps.
(2)
No. Beck had voluntarily undertaken to return all the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the
latter's demand, the Court could not legally compel her to bear the expenses occasioned by the
deposit of the furniture at the defendant's behest. The latter, as bailee, was not entitled to place
the furniture on deposit; nor was the plaintiff under a duty to accept the offer to return the
furniture, because the defendant wanted to retain the three gas heaters and the four electric
lamps.
As to the value of the furniture, the court do not believe that the plaintiff is entitled to the
payment by the defendant in case of his inability to return some of the furniture because it is
stated defendant has neither agreed to nor admitted the correctness of the said value.
(3)
Yes. The costs in both instances should be borne by the defendant because the plaintiff is
the prevailing party. The defendant was the one who breached the contract of commodatum, and
without any reason he refused to return and deliver all the furniture upon the plaintiff's demand .
In these circumstances, it is just and equitable that he pay the legal expenses and other judicial costs
which the plaintiff would not have otherwise defrayed.