FAJUTAGANA,CRISTINE JOY A.

CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. L-46240 November 3, 1939

MARGARITA QUINTOS and ANGEL A. ANSALDO, plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.
BECK, defendant-appellee.

Facts of the case:

 The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and former gratuitously granted to the
defendant the use three gas heaters and the four electric lamps subject to the
condition that the defendant would return them to the plaintiff upon the latter's
demand.
 The plaintiff sold the property to Maria Lopez and Rosario Lopez and notified the
defendant of the conveyance, giving him sixty days to vacate the premises and
required the defendant to return all the furniture transferred to him.
 The defendant wrote a 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 lease expire.
 The plaintiff refused to get the furniture in view of the fact that the defendant had
declined to make delivery of all of them.
 Before vacating the house, the defendant deposited with the Sheriff all the
furniture belonging to the plaintiff.

Issue: Whether the defendant complied with his obligation to return the furniture upon the
plaintiff's demand

Held: No.

 The contract entered into between the parties is one of commadatum, because
under it 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.
 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.
FAJUTAGANA,CRISTINE JOY A.
CASE DIGEST
SG.R. No. L-17474 October 25, 1962
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JOSE V. BAGTAS, defendant,
FELICIDAD M. BAGTAS, Administratrix of the Intestate Estate left by the late Jose
V. Bagtas, petitioner-appellant.

Facts of the case:

 Jose V. Bagtas borrowed from the Republic of the Philippines through the Bureau
of Animal Industry three bulls for a period of one year for breeding purposes subject
to a government charge of breeding fee of 10% of the book value of the bulls.
 Upon the expiration of the contract, the borrower asked for a renewal for another
period of one year, however, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
approved a renewal thereof of only one bull for another and requested the return
of the other two.
 Jose V. Bagtas wrote to the Director of Animal Industry that he would pay the value
of the three bulls with a deduction of yearly depreciation to be approved by the
Auditor General.
 Director of Animal Industry advised him that the book value of the three bulls could
not be reduced and that they either be returned or their book value be paid.
 Jose V. Bagtas failed to pay the book value of the three bulls or to return them so,
the Republic of the Philippines commenced an action against him praying that he
be ordered to return the three bulls loaned to him or to pay their book value and
the unpaid breeding fee both with interests.
 CFI rendered decision in favor of the Republic of the Philippines.
 After the death of Jose Bagtas, his surviving spouse filed a motion alleging that the
two bull Sindhi and Bhagnari were returned to the Bureau Animal of Industry and
that the third bull, the Sahiniwal, died from gunshot wound inflicted during a Huk
raid, and that as such death was due to force majeure she is relieved from the duty
of returning the bull or paying its value.
 The appellant contends that the contract was commodatum and that, for that
reason, as the appellee retained ownership or title to the bull it should suffer its
loss due to force majeure.
 The motion was denied.

Issue: Whether or not the defendant is liable for the the bailee is liable for the loss of thing
due to force majeure

Held: Yes.

A contract of commodatum is essentially gratuitous. If the breeding fee be considered a

compensation, then the contract would be a lease of the bull. Under article 1671 of the
Civil Code the lessee would be subject to the responsibilities of a possessor in bad faith,
because she had continued possession of the bull after the expiry of the contract. And
even if the contract be commodatum, still the appellant is liable, because article 1942 of
the Civil Code provides that a bailee in a contract of commodatum —

. . . is liable for loss of the things, even if it should be through a fortuitous event:

(2) If he keeps it longer than the period stipulated . . .

(3) If the thing loaned has been delivered with appraisal of its value, unless there
is a stipulation exempting the bailee from responsibility in case of a fortuitous
event;

The original period of the loan was from 8 May 1948 to 7 May 1949. The loan of one bull
was renewed for another period of one year to end on 8 May 1950. But the appellant kept
and used the bull until November 1953 when during a Huk raid it was killed by stray
bullets. Furthermore, when lent and delivered to the deceased husband of the appellant
the bulls had each an appraised book value.
FAJUTAGANA,CRISTINE JOY A.
CASE DIGEST
G.R. No. 146364 June 3, 2004
COLITO T. PAJUYO, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and EDDIE GUEVARRA, respondents.

Facts of the case:

 Colito T. Pajuyo paid to a certain Pedro Perez for the rights over a 250-square
meter lot in Barrio Payatas, Quezon City and then constructed a house made of
light materials on the lot.
 In 1985, Pajuyo and Eddie Guevarra executed a Kasunduan or agreement
allowing Guevarra to live in the house for free provided Guevarra would maintain
the cleanliness and orderliness of the house, while Guevarra promised that he
would voluntarily vacate the premises on Pajuyo’s demand.
 In 1994, Pajuyo informed Guevarra of his need of the house and demanded that
Guevarra vacate the house, Guevarra refused.
 Pajuyo filed an ejectment case against Guevarra with the Metropolitan Trial Court
rendering decision in favor of Pajuyo and affirmed by RTC.
 However, the Court of Appeals reversed RTC’s decision.
 The Court of Appeals reversed the MTC and RTC rulings, which held that
the Kasunduan between Pajuyo and Guevarra created a legal tie akin to that of a
landlord and tenant relationship. The Court of Appeals ruled that the Kasunduan is
not a lease contract but a commodatum because the agreement is not for a price
certain.

Issue: Whether or not the Kasunduan between Pajuyo and Guevarra is on ef

commodatum

Held: No.

In a contract of commodatum, one of the parties delivers to another something not

consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it. An
essential feature of commodatum is that it is gratuitous. Another feature
of commodatum is that the use of the thing belonging to another is for a certain
period. Thus, the bailor cannot demand the return of the thing loaned until after expiration
of the period stipulated, or after accomplishment of the use for which the commodatum is
constituted. If the bailor should have urgent need of the thing, he may demand its return
for temporary use.If the use of the thing is merely tolerated by the bailor, he can demand
the return of the thing at will, in which case the contractual relation is called a
precarium. Under the Civil Code, precarium is a kind of commodatum.

The Kasunduan reveals that the accommodation accorded by Pajuyo to Guevarra was
not essentially gratuitous. While the Kasunduan did not require Guevarra to pay rent, it
obligated him to maintain the property in good condition. The imposition of this obligation
makes the Kasunduan a contract different from a commodatum. The effects of
the Kasunduan are also different from that of a commodatum.

Even assuming that the relationship between Pajuyo and Guevarra is one
of commodatum, Guevarra as bailee would still have the duty to turn over possession of
the property to Pajuyo, the bailor. The obligation to deliver or to return the thing received
attaches to contracts for safekeeping, or contracts of commission, administration and
commodatum. These contracts certainly involve the obligation to deliver or return the
thing received.

Petition granted.
FAJUTAGANA,CRISTINE JOY A.
CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. 115324 February 19, 2003

PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (now FIRST INTERNATIONAL

BANK), petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND FRANKLIN VIVES, respondents.

Facts of the Case:

 Franklin Vives was asked by Angeles Sanchez to help her friend Col. Arturo
Doronilla, in incorporating the Sterela Marketing and Services ("Sterela" for
brevity).
 Sanchez asked Vives to deposit in a bank P 200,000 in account of Sterela for
purposes of its incorporation and assured Vives that he could withdraw his money
from said account within a month’s time.
 Vives authorized his wife to open an account at Makati branch of Producers Bank
of the Philippines.
 Subsequently, Vives learned that Sterela was no longer holding office in the
address previously given to him. Alarmed, he and his wife went to the Bank to
verify if their money was still intact, however only ₱90,000.00 remained therein.
 Doronilla issued a postdated check for ₱212,000.00 in favor of Vives but it was
dishonored, hence Vives filed action for recovery of sum of money in RTC. RTC
rendered decision in favor of Vives. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
 Petitioner contends that the transaction between private respondent and Doronilla
is a simple loan (mutuum) and that it committed no wrong in allowing Doronilla to
withdraw from Sterela’s savings account.

Issue: Whether or not the transaction between Vives and Doronilla is mutuum

Held: No, the transaction between Vives and Doronilla is commudatum and not a
mutuum.

Article 1936 of the Civil Code provides:

Consumable goods may be the subject of commodatum if the purpose of the contract is
not the consumption of the object, as when it is merely for exhibition.

Thus, if consumable goods are loaned only for purposes of exhibition, or when the
intention of the parties is to lend consumable goods and to have the very same goods
returned at the end of the period agreed upon, the loan is a commodatum and not a
mutuum.

The rule is that the intention of the parties thereto shall be accorded primordial
consideration in determining the actual character of a contract. In case of doubt, the
contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties shall be considered in such
determination.

As correctly pointed out by both the Court of Appeals and the trial court, the evidence
shows that private respondent agreed to deposit his money in the savings account of
Sterela specifically for the purpose of making it appear "that said firm had sufficient
capitalization for incorporation, with the promise that the amount shall be returned within
thirty (30) days." Private respondent merely "accommodated" Doronilla by lending his
money without consideration, as a favor to his good friend Sanchez.

Doronilla’s attempts to return to private respondent the amount of ₱200,000.00 which the
latter deposited in Sterela’s account together with an additional ₱12,000.00, allegedly
representing interest on the mutuum, did not convert the transaction from a commodatum
into a mutuum because such was not the intent of the parties.
FAJUTAGANA,CRISTINE JOY A.
CASE DIGEST
Petitioner is liable for private respondent’s loss and is solidarily liable with Doronilla and
Dumagpi for the return of the ₱200,000.00 since it is clear that petitioner failed to prove
that it exercised due diligence to prevent the unauthorized withdrawals from Sterela’s
savings account, and that it was not negligent in the selection and supervision of Atienza.