Art.

1942
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.
October 25, 1962 G.R. No. L-17474 Padilla, J.
Provisions/Concepts/Doctrines and How Applied to the Case
Article 1942. The bailee in a contract of commodatum — is liable for loss of the things, even if it should be
through a fortuitous event:
xxx
(2) If he keeps it longer than the period stipulated, or after the accomplishment of the use for which the
commodatum has been constituted;
(3) If the thing loaned has been delivered with appraisal of its value, unless there is a stipulation
exemption the bailee from responsibility in case of a fortuitous event;
xxx
FACTS
 On May 8, 1948, Jose V. Bagtas borrowed from the Republic of the Philippines through the Bureau of
Animal Industry three bulls:
o a Red Sindhi with a book value of P1,176.46,
o a Bhagnari, of P1,320.56, and
o a Sahiniwal, of P744.46.
 They were borrowed for a period of one year from May 8, 1948, to May 7, 1949 for breeding purposes
subject to a government charge of breeding fee of 10% of the book value of the bulls.
 Upon expiration of the original term, 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 year and requested the return of the other two.
 On March 25, 1950, Jose wrote to the Director of Animal Industry that he would pay the value of the three
bulls. Moreover, he expressed his desire to buy them at lower value.
 On October 19, 1950, the Director advised him that the books value of the bulls cannot be reduced, and
they either be returned, or their book value paid not later than October 31, 1950.
 Subsequently, Jose failed to either return or pay them.
 On December 20, 1950, the Republic commenced an action against Jose in the CFI of Manila ordering the
return of the bulls and the payment of their book value.
 On July 5, 1951, however, Jose replied that he could neither return the bulls nor pay their book value due
to the bad peace and order situation in Cagayan Valley.
 Later, it was found out that the Sahiniwal died from a gunshot wound inflicted during a Huk raid sometime
in November 1953.
 The CFI later ruled in favor of the Republic, sentencing the latter (defendant) to pay the sum of
P3,625.09 the total value of the three bulls plus the breeding fees in the amount of P626.17 with interest
on both sums of (at) the legal rate from the filing of this complaint and costs.
 Felicidad Bagtas, the surviving spouse, and administrator of Bagtas’ estate alleged that they returned the
two bulls and filed a motion to quash the writ of execution since one bull cannot be returned for it was
killed by gunshot during a Huk raid.
 The Court denied her motion hence, the appeal certified by the Court of Appeals because only questions
of law are raised.
ISSUE/S (relevant to the syllabus)
Whether defendant is liable for the loss of the bull due to force majeure. (Yes.)
RULING (include how the law was applied)
Yes. A contract of commodatum is essentially gratuitous. The Court held that Bagtas was liable for the loss of
the bull even though it was caused by a fortuitous event.
If the contract was one of lease, then the 10% breeding charge is compensation (rent) for the use of the bull and
Bagtas, as lessee, is subject to the responsibilities of a possessor. He is also in bad faith for continuing to
possess the bull even though the term of the contract has already expired.

If the contract was one of commodatum, he is still liable because:

(1) he kept the bull longer than the period stipulated; and
(2) the thing loaned has been delivered with appraisal of its value (10%).
There was also no stipulation that in case of loss of the bull due to fortuitous event the late husband of the
appellant would be exempt from liability.

The original period of the loan was from May 8, 1948, to May 7, 1949. The loan of one bull was renewed for
another period of one year to end on May 8, 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, to wit: the Sindhi, at P1,176.46, the
Bhagnari at P1,320.56 and the Sahiniwal at P744.46. It was not stipulated that in case of loss of the bull due to
fortuitous event the late husband of the appellant would be exempt from liability.

As they have returned the 2 bulls, the estate of the late defendant is only liable for the sum of ₱859.63, the value
of the bull which has not been returned to the appellee, because it was killed while in the custody of the
administratrix of his estate.
DISPOSITIVE
ACCORDINGLY, the writ of execution appealed from is SET ASIDE, without pronouncement as to costs.

ADDITIONAL NOTES