Chapter I: Commodatum G.R. No.

L-17474 October 25, 1962

R !"#LIC O$ %& !&ILI!!IN ', plaintiff-appellee, vs. (O' ). #*G%*', defendant, $ LICI+*+ ,. #*G%*', *dm-.-/tratr-0 o1 the I.te/tate D. T. Reyes, Liaison and Associates for petitioner-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. !*+ILL*, J.:

/tate 2e1t b3 the 2ate (o/e ). #a4ta/, petitioner-appellant.

The Court of Appeals certified this case to this Court because only questions of law are raised. On 8 May 1 !8 "ose #. $a%tas borrowed fro& the 'epublic of the (hilippines throu%h the $ureau of Ani&al )ndustry three bulls* a 'ed +indhi with a boo, value of (1,1-..!., a $ha%nari, of (1,/01.2. and a +ahiniwal, of (-!!.!., for a period of one year fro& 8 May 1 !8 to - May 1 ! for breedin% purposes sub3ect to a %overn&ent char%e of breedin% fee of 114 of the boo, value of the bulls. 5pon the e6piration on - May 1 ! of the contract, the borrower as,ed for a renewal for another period of one year. 7owever, the +ecretary of A%riculture and 8atural 'esources approved a renewal thereof of only one bull for another year fro& 8 May 1 ! to May 1 21 and requested the return of the other two. On 02 March 1 21 "ose #. $a%tas wrote to the 9irector of Ani&al )ndustry that he would pay the value of the three bulls. On 1- October 1 21 he reiterated his desire to buy the& at a value with a deduction of yearly depreciation to be approved by the Auditor :eneral. On 1 October 1 21 the 9irector of Ani&al )ndustry advised hi& that the boo, value of the three bulls could not be reduced and that they either be returned or their boo, value paid not later than /1 October 1 21. "ose #. $a%tas failed to pay the boo, value of the three bulls or to return the&. +o, on 01 9ece&ber 1 21 in the Court of ;irst )nstance of Manila the 'epublic of the (hilippines co&&enced an action a%ainst hi& prayin% that he be ordered to return the three bulls loaned to hi& or to pay their boo, value in the total su& of (/,0!1.!2 and the unpaid breedin% fee in the su& of (1 ..0, both with interests, and costs< and that other 3ust and equitable relief be %ranted in =civil 8o. 10818>. On 2 "uly 1 21 "ose #. $a%tas, throu%h counsel 8avarro, 'osete and Manalo, answered that because of the bad peace and order situation in Ca%ayan #alley, particularly in the barrio of $a%%ao, and of the pendin% appeal he had ta,en to the +ecretary of A%riculture and 8atural 'esources and the (resident of the (hilippines fro& the refusal by the 9irector of Ani&al )ndustry to deduct fro& the boo, value of the bulls correspondin% yearly depreciation of 84 fro& the date of acquisition, to which depreciation the Auditor :eneral did not ob3ect, he could not return the ani&als nor pay their value and prayed for the dis&issal of the co&plaint. After hearin%, on /1 "uly 1 2. the trial court render 3ud%&ent ? . . . sentencin% the latter =defendant> to pay the su& of (/,.02.1 the total value of the three bulls plus the breedin% fees in the a&ount of (.0..1- with interest on both su&s of =at> the le%al rate fro& the filin% of this co&plaint and costs. On October 1 28 the plaintiff &oved e6 parte for a writ of e6ecution which the court %ranted on 18 October and issued on 11 8ove&ber 1 28. On 0 9ece&ber 1 28 %ranted an e6-parte &otion filed by the plaintiff on 8ove&ber 1 28 for the appoint&ent of a special sheriff to serve the writ outside Manila. Of this order appointin% a special sheriff, on . 9ece&ber 1 28, ;elicidad M. $a%tas, the survivin% spouse of the defendant "ose $a%tas who died on 0/ October 1 21 and as ad&inistratri6 of his estate, was notified. On - "anuary 1 2 she file a &otion alle%in% that on 0. "une 1 20 the two bull +indhi and $ha%nari were returned to the $ureau Ani&al of )ndustry and that so&eti&e in 8ove&ber 1 28 the third bull, the +ahiniwal, died fro& %unshot wound inflicted durin% a 7u, raid on 7acienda ;elicidad )ntal, and prayin% that the writ of e6ecution be quashed and that a writ of preli&inary in3unction be issued. On /1 "anuary 1 2 the plaintiff ob3ected to her &otion. On . ;ebruary 1 2 she filed a reply thereto. On the sa&e day, . ;ebruary, the Court denied her &otion. 7ence, this appeal certified by the Court of Appeals to this Court as stated at the be%innin% of this opinion. )t is true that on 0. "une 1 20 "ose M. $a%tas, "r., son of the appellant by the late defendant, returned the +indhi and $ha%nari bulls to 'o&an 'e&orin, +uperintendent of the 8#$ +tation, $ureau of Ani&al )ndustry, $ayo&bon%, 8ueva #i@caya, as evidenced by a &e&orandu& receipt si%ned by the latter =A6hibit 0>. That is why in its ob3ection of /1 "anuary 1 2 to the appellantBs &otion to quash the writ of e6ecution the appellee prays Cthat another writ of e6ecution in the su& of (82 .2/ be issued a%ainst the estate of defendant deceased "ose #. $a%tas.C +he cannot be held liable for the two bulls which already had been returned to and received by the appellee. The appellant contends that the +ahiniwal bull was accidentally ,illed durin% a raid by the 7u, in 8ove&ber 1 2/ upon the surroundin% barrios of 7acienda ;elicidad )ntal, $a%%ao, Ca%ayan, where the ani&al was ,ept, and that as such death was due to force majeure she is relieved fro& the duty of returnin% the bull or payin% its value to the appellee. The contention is without &erit. The loan by the appellee to the late defendant "ose #. $a%tas of the three bulls for breedin% purposes for a period of one year fro& 8 May 1 !8 to - May 1 ! , later on renewed for another year as re%ards one bull, was sub3ect to the pay&ent by the borrower of breedin% fee of 114 of the boo, value of the bulls. 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. A contract of commodatum is essentially %ratuitous.1 )f the breedin% fee be considered a co&pensation, then the contract would be a lease of the bull. 5nder article 1.-1 of the Civil Code the lessee would be sub3ect to the responsibilities of a possessor in bad faith, because she

had continued possession of the bull after the e6piry of the contract. And even if the contract be commodatum, still the appellant is liable, because article 1 !0 of the Civil Code provides that a bailee in a contract of commodatum ? . . . is liable for loss of the thin%s, even if it should be throu%h a fortuitous event* =0> )f he ,eeps it lon%er than the period stipulated . . . =/> )f the thin% loaned has been delivered with appraisal of its value, unless there is a stipulation e6e&ptin% the bailee fro& responsibility in case of a fortuitous event< The ori%inal period of the loan was fro& 8 May 1 !8 to - May 1 ! . The loan of one bull was renewed for another period of one year to end on 8 May 1 21. $ut the appellant ,ept and used the bull until 8ove&ber 1 2/ when durin% a 7u, raid it was ,illed by stray bullets. ;urther&ore, when lent and delivered to the deceased husband of the appellant the bulls had each an appraised boo, value, to with* the +indhi, at (1,1-..!., the $ha%nari at (1,/01.2. and the +ahiniwal at (-!!.!.. )t was not stipulated that in case of loss of the bull due to fortuitous event the late husband of the appellant would be e6e&pt fro& liability. The appellantBs contention that the de&and or prayer by the appellee for the return of the bull or the pay&ent of its value bein% a &oney clai& should be presented or filed in the intestate proceedin%s of the defendant who died on 0/ October 1 21, is not alto%ether without &erit. 7owever, the clai& that his civil personality havin% ceased to e6ist the trial court lost 3urisdiction over the case a%ainst hi&, is untenable, because section 1- of 'ule / of the 'ules of Court provides that ? After a party dies and the clai& is not thereby e6tin%uished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the le%al representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased, within a period of thirty =/1> days, or within such ti&e as &ay be %ranted. . . . and after the defendantBs death on 0/ October 1 21 his counsel failed to co&ply with section 1. of 'ule / which provides that ? Dhenever a party to a pendin% case dies . . . it shall be the duty of his attorney to infor& the court pro&ptly of such death . . . and to %ive the na&e and residence of the e6ecutory ad&inistrator, %uardian, or other le%al representative of the deceased .... The notice by the probate court and its publication in the Vo de !anila that ;elicidad M. $a%tas had been issue letters of ad&inistration of the estate of the late "ose $a%tas and that Call persons havin% clai&s for &onopoly a%ainst the deceased "ose #. $a%tas, arisin% fro& contract e6press or i&plied, whether the sa&e be due, not due, or contin%ent, for funeral e6penses and e6penses of the last sic,ness of the said decedent, and 3ud%&ent for &onopoly a%ainst hi&, to file said clai&s with the Cler, of this Court at the City 7all $ld%., 7i%hway 2!, Eue@on City, within si6 =.> &onths fro& the date of the first publication of this order, servin% a copy thereof upon the afore&entioned ;elicidad M. $a%tas, the appointed ad&inistratri6 of the estate of the said deceased,C is not a notice to the court and the appellee who were to be notified of the defendantBs death in accordance with the above-quoted rule, and there was no reason for such failure to notify, because the attorney who appeared for the defendant was the sa&e who represented the ad&inistratri6 in the special proceedin%s instituted for the ad&inistration and settle&ent of his estate. The appellee or its attorney or representative could not be e6pected to ,now of the death of the defendant or of the ad&inistration proceedin%s of his estate instituted in another court that if the attorney for the deceased defendant did not notify the plaintiff or its attorney of such death as required by the rule. As the appellant already had returned the two bulls to the appellee, the estate of the late defendant is only liable for the su& of (82 ../, the value of the bull which has not been returned to the appellee, because it was ,illed while in the custody of the ad&inistratri6 of his estate. This is the a&ount prayed for by the appellee in its ob3ection on /1 "anuary 1 2 to the &otion filed on "anuary 1 2 by the appellant for the quashin% of the writ of e6ecution. +pecial proceedin%s for the ad&inistration and settle&ent of the estate of the deceased "ose #. $a%tas havin% been instituted in the Court of ;irst )nstance of 'i@al =E-011>, the &oney 3ud%&ent rendered in favor of the appellee cannot be enforced by &eans of a writ of e6ecution but &ust be presented to the probate court for pay&ent by the appellant, the ad&inistratri6 appointed by the court. ACCO'9)8:FG, the writ of e6ecution appealed fro& is set aside, without pronounce&ent as to costs. "en# on, $.%., "autista An#elo, La&rador, $oncepcion, Reyes, %.".L., 'aredes, Di on, Re#ala and !a(alintal, %%., "arrera, %., concurs in the result. concur.

G.R. No. 56294-95 'eptember 21, 1955 C*%&OLIC )IC*R *!O'%OLIC O$ %& ,O"N%*IN !RO)INC , petitioner, vs. CO"R% O$ *!! *L', & IR' O$ G,I+IO OC%*)I*NO *N+ ("*N )*L+ 7, respondents. G*NC*8CO, J.: The principal issue in this case is whether or not a decision of the Court of Appeals pro&ul%ated a lon% ti&e a%o can properly be considered res judicata by respondent Court of Appeals in the present two cases between petitioner and two private respondents. (etitioner questions as alle%edly erroneous the 9ecision dated Au%ust /1, 1 8- of the 8inth 9ivision of 'espondent Court of Appeals 1 in CA-:.'. 8o. 121!8 HCivil Case 8o. /.1- =!1 >I and CA-:.'. 8o. 121! HCivil Case 8o. /.22 =!0 >I, both for 'ecovery of (ossession, which affir&ed the 9ecision of the 7onorable 8icode&o T. ;errer, "ud%e of the 'e%ional Trial Court of $a%uio and $en%uet in Civil Case 8o. /.1- =!1 > and Civil Case 8o. /.22 =!0 >, with the dispositive portion as follows* D7A'A;O'A, "ud%&ent is hereby rendered orderin% the defendant, Catholic #icar Apostolic of the Mountain (rovince to return and surrender Fot 0 of (lan (su-1 !/2- to the plaintiffs. 7eirs of "uan #alde@, and Fot / of the sa&e (lan to the other set of plaintiffs, the 7eirs of A%&idio Octaviano =Feonardo #alde@, et al.>. ;or lac, or insufficiency of evidence, the plaintiffsB clai& or da&a%es is hereby denied. +aid defendant is ordered to pay costs. =p. /., 'ollo> 'espondent Court of Appeals, in affir&in% the trial courtBs decision, sustained the trial courtBs conclusions that the 9ecision of the Court of Appeals, dated May !,1 -- in CA-:.'. 8o. /88/1-', in the two cases affir&ed by the +upre&e Court, touched on the ownership of lots 0 and / in question< that the two lots were possessed by the predecessors-in-interest of private respondents under clai& of ownership in %ood faith fro& 1 1. to 1 21< that petitioner had been in possession of the sa&e lots as bailee in co&&odatu& up to 1 21, when petitioner repudiated the trust and when it applied for re%istration in 1 .0< that petitioner had 3ust been in possession as owner for eleven years, hence there is no possibility of acquisitive prescription which requires 11 years possession with 3ust title and /1 years of possession without< that the principle of res judicata on these findin%s by the Court of Appeals will bar a reopenin% of these questions of facts< and that those facts &ay no lon%er be altered. (etitionerBs &otion for reconsideation of the respondent appellate courtBs 9ecision in the two afore&entioned cases =CA :.'. 8o. C#12!18 and 12!1 > was denied. The facts and bac,%round of these cases as narrated by the trail court are as follows ? ... The docu&ents and records presented reveal that the whole controversy started when the defendant Catholic #icar Apostolic of the Mountain (rovince =#)CA' for brevity> filed with the Court of ;irst )nstance of $a%uio $en%uet on +epte&ber 2, 1 .0 an application for re%istration of title over Fots 1, 0, /, and ! in (su-1 !/2-, situated at (oblacion Central, Fa Trinidad, $en%uet, doc,eted as F'C 8- 1, said Fots bein% the sites of the Catholic Church buildin%, convents, hi%h school buildin%, school %y&nasiu&, school dor&itories, social hall, stonewalls, etc. On March 00, 1 ./ the 7eirs of "uan #alde@ and the 7eirs of A%&idio Octaviano filed their AnswerJOpposition on Fots 8os. 0 and /, respectively, assertin% ownership and title thereto. After trial on the &erits, the land re%istration court pro&ul%ated its 9ecision, dated 8ove&ber 1-, 1 .2, confir&in% the re%istrable title of #)CA' to Fots 1, 0, /, and !. The 7eirs of "uan #alde@ =plaintiffs in the herein Civil Case 8o. /.22> and the 7eirs of A%&idio Octaviano =plaintiffs in the herein Civil Case 8o. /.1-> appealed the decision of the land re%istration court to the then Court of Appeals, doc,eted as CA-:.'. 8o. /88/1-'. The Court of Appeals rendered its decision, dated May , 1 --, reversin% the decision of the land re%istration court and dis&issin% the #)CA'Bs application as to Fots 0 and /, the lots clai&ed by the two sets of oppositors in the land re%istration case =and two sets of plaintiffs in the two cases now at bar>, the first lot bein% presently occupied by the convent and the second by the wo&enBs dor&itory and the sisterBs convent. On May , 1 --, the 7eirs of Octaviano filed a &otion for reconsideration prayin% the Court of Appeals to order the re%istration of Fot / in the na&es of the 7eirs of A%&idio Octaviano, and on May 1-, 1 --, the 7eirs of "uan #alde@ and (acita #alde@ filed their &otion for reconsideration prayin% that both Fots 0 and / be ordered re%istered in the na&es of the 7eirs of "uan #alde@ and (acita #alde@. On Au%ust 10,1 --, the Court of Appeals denied the &otion for reconsideration filed by the 7eirs of "uan #alde@ on the %round that there was Cno sufficient &erit to 3ustify reconsideration one way or the other ...,C and li,ewise denied that of the 7eirs of A%&idio Octaviano. Thereupon, the #)CA' filed with the +upre&e Court a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals dis&issin% his =its> application for re%istration of Fots 0 and /,

doc,eted as :.'. 8o. F-!.8/0, entitled BCatholic #icar Apostolic of the Mountain (rovince vs. Court of Appeals and 7eirs of A%&idio Octaviano.B ;ro& the denial by the Court of Appeals of their &otion for reconsideration the 7eirs of "uan #alde@ and (acita #alde@, on +epte&ber 8, 1 --, filed with the +upre&e Court a petition for review, doc,eted as :.'. 8o. F-!.8-0, entitled, )eirs of %uan Valde and 'acita Valde *s. $ourt of Appeals, #icar, 7eirs of A%&idio Octaviano and Annable O. #alde@. On "anuary 1/, 1 -8, the +upre&e Court denied in a &inute resolution both petitions =of #)CA' on the one hand and the 7eirs of "uan #alde@ and (acita #alde@ on the other> for lac, of &erit. 5pon the finality of both +upre&e Court resolutions in :.'. 8o. F-!.8/0 and :.'. 8o. F- !.8-0, the 7eirs of Octaviano filed with the then Court of ;irst )nstance of $a%uio, $ranch )), a Motion ;or A6ecution of "ud%&ent prayin% that the 7eirs of Octaviano be placed in possession of Fot /. The Court, presided over by 7on. +alvador ". #alde@, on 9ece&ber -, 1 -8, denied the &otion on the %round that the Court of Appeals decision in CA-:.'. 8o. /88-1 did not %rant the 7eirs of Octaviano any affir&ative relief. On ;ebruary -, 1 - , the 7eirs of Octaviano filed with the Court of Appeals a petitioner for certiorari and &anda&us, doc,eted as CA-:.'. 8o. 188 1-', entitled )eirs of +#midio Octa*iano *s. )on. Sal*ador %. Valde , %r. and Vicar . )n its decision dated May 1., 1 - , the Court of Appeals dis&issed the petition. )t was at that sta%e that the instant cases were filed. The 7eirs of A%&idio Octaviano filed Civil Case 8o. /.1- =!1 > on "uly 0!, 1 - , for recovery of possession of Fot /< and the 7eirs of "uan #alde@ filed Civil Case 8o. /.22 =!0 > on +epte&ber 0!, 1 - , li,ewise for recovery of possession of Fot 0 =9ecision, pp. 1 -011, Ori%. 'ec.>. )n Civil Case 8o. /.1- =!1 > trial was held. The plaintiffs 7eirs of A%&idio Octaviano presented one =1> witness, ;ructuoso #alde@, who testified on the alle%ed ownership of the land in question =Fot /> by their predecessor-ininterest, A%&idio Octaviano =A6h. C >< his written de&and =A6h. $?$-! > to defendant #icar for the return of the land to the&< and the reasonable rentals for the use of the land at (11,111.11 per &onth. On the other hand, defendant #icar presented the 'e%ister of 9eeds for the (rovince of $en%uet, Atty. 8icanor +ison, who testified that the land in question is not covered by any title in the na&e of A%&idio Octaviano or any of the plaintiffs =A6h. 8>. The defendant dispensed with the testi&ony of Mons.Dillia& $rasseur when the plaintiffs ad&itted that the witness if called to the witness stand, would testify that defendant #icar has been in possession of Fot /, for seventy-five =-2> years continuously and peacefully and has constructed per&anent structures thereon. )n Civil Case 8o. /.22, the parties ad&ittin% that the &aterial facts are not in dispute, sub&itted the case on the sole issue of whether or not the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the +upre&e Court touchin% on the ownership of Fot 0, which in effect declared the plaintiffs the owners of the land constitute res judicata. )n these two cases , the plaintiffs arque that the defendant #icar is barred fro& settin% up the defense of ownership andJor lon% and continuous possession of the two lots in question since this is barred by prior 3ud%&ent of the Court of Appeals in CA-:.'. 8o. 1/88/1-' under the principle of res judicata. (laintiffs contend that the question of possession and ownership have already been deter&ined by the Court of Appeals =A6h. C, 9ecision, CA-:.'. 8o. 1/88/1-'> and affir&ed by the +upre&e Court =A6h. 1, Minute 'esolution of the +upre&e Court>. On his part, defendant #icar &aintains that the principle of res judicata would not prevent the& fro& liti%atin% the issues of lon% possession and ownership because the dispositive portion of the prior 3ud%&ent in CA-:.'. 8o. 1/88/1-' &erely dis&issed their application for re%istration and titlin% of lots 0 and /. 9efendant #icar contends that only the dispositive portion of the decision, and not its body, is the controllin% pronounce&ent of the Court of Appeals. 2 The alle%ed errors co&&itted by respondent Court of Appeals accordin% to petitioner are as follows* 1. A''O' )8 A((FG)8: FAD O; T7A CA+A A89 R+S %,D-$ATA< 0. A''O' )8 ;)89)8: T7AT T7A T')AF CO5'T '5FA9 T7AT FOT+ 0 A89 / DA'A ACE5)'A9 $G (5'C7A+A $5T D)T7O5T 9OC5MA8TA'G A#)9A8CA ('A+A8TA9< /. A''O' )8 ;)89)8: T7AT (AT)T)O8A'+B CFA)M )T (5'C7A+A9 FOT+ 0 A89 / ;'OM #AF9AK A89 OCTA#)A8O DA+ A8 )M(F)A9 A9M)++)O8 T7AT T7A ;O'MA' OD8A'+ DA'A #AF9AK A89 OCTA#)A8O< !. A''O' )8 ;)89)8: T7AT )T DA+ ('A9ACA++O'+ O; (')#ATA 'A+(O89A8T+ D7O DA'A )8 (O++A++)O8 O; FOT+ 0 A89 / AT FAA+T ;'OM 1 1., A89 8OT (AT)T)O8A'< 2. A''O' )8 ;)89)8: T7AT #AF9AK A89 OCTA#)A8O 7A9 ;'AA (ATA8T A((F)CAT)O8+ A89 T7A ('A9ACA++O'+ O; (')#ATA 'A+(O89A8T+ AF'AA9G 7A9 ;'AA (ATA8T A((F)CAT)O8+ +)8CA 1 1.<

.. A''O' )8 ;)89)8: T7AT (AT)T)O8A' 9ACFA'A9 FOT+ 0 A89 / O8FG )8 1 21 A89 "5+T T)TFA )+ A (')MA 8ACA++)TG 589A' A'T)CFA 11/! )8 'AFAT)O8 TO A'T. 110 O; T7A C)#)F CO9A ;O' O'9)8A'G ACE5)+)T)#A ('A+C')(T)O8 O; 11 GAA'+< -. A''O' )8 ;)89)8: T7AT T7A 9AC)+)O8 O; T7A CO5'T O; A((AAF+ )8 CA :.'. 8O. 1/88/1 DA+ A;;)'MA9 $G T7A +5('AMA CO5'T< 8. A''O' )8 ;)89)8: T7AT T7A 9AC)+)O8 )8 CA :.'. 8O. 1/88/1 TO5C7A9 O8 OD8A'+7)( O; FOT+ 0 A89 / A89 T7AT (')#ATA 'A+(O89A8T+ A89 T7A)' ('A9ACA++O'+ DA'A )8 (O++A++)O8 O; FOT+ 0 A89 / 589A' A CFA)M O; OD8A'+7)( )8 :OO9 ;A)T7 ;'OM 1 1. TO 1 21< . A''O' )8 ;)89)8: T7AT (AT)T)O8A' 7A9 $AA8 )8 (O++A++)O8 O; FOT+ 0 A89 / MA'AFG A+ $A)FAA $O' 'ODA'> )8 COMMO9AT5M, A :'AT5)TO5+ FOA8 ;O' 5+A< 11. A''O' )8 ;)89)8: T7AT (AT)T)O8A' )+ A (O++A++O' A89 $5)F9A' )8 :OO9 ;A)T7 D)T7O5T '):7T+ O; 'ATA8T)O8 A89 'A)M$5'+AMA8T A89 )+ $A''A9 $G T7A ;)8AF)TG A89 CO8CF5+)#A8A++ O; T7A 9AC)+)O8 )8 CA :.'. 8O. 1/88/1. 9 The petition is bereft of &erit. (etitioner questions the rulin% of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-:.'. 8os. 121!8 and 121! , when it clearly held that it was in a%ree&ent with the findin%s of the trial court that the 9ecision of the Court of Appeals dated May !,1 -- in CA-:.'. 8o. /88/1-', on the question of ownership of Fots 0 and /, declared that the said Court of Appeals 9ecision CA-:.'. 8o. /88/1-'> did not positively declare private respondents as owners of the land, neither was it declared that they were not owners of the land, but it held that the predecessors of private respondents were possessors of Fots 0 and /, with clai& of ownership in %ood faith fro& 1 1. to 1 21. (etitioner was in possession as borrower in co&&odatu& up to 1 21, when it repudiated the trust by declarin% the properties in its na&e for ta6ation purposes. Dhen petitioner applied for re%istration of Fots 0 and / in 1 .0, it had been in possession in concept of owner only for eleven years. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession for ten years, but always with 3ust title. A6traordinary acquisitive prescription requires /1 years. 4 On the above findin%s of facts supported by evidence and evaluated by the Court of Appeals in CA-:.'. 8o. /88/1-', affir&ed by this Court, De see no error in respondent appellate courtBs rulin% that said findin%s are res judicata between the parties. They can no lon%er be altered by presentation of evidence because those issues were resolved with finality a lon% ti&e a%o. To i%nore the principle of res judicata would be to open the door to endless liti%ations by continuous deter&ination of issues without end. An e6a&ination of the Court of Appeals 9ecision dated May !, 1 --, ;irst 9ivision 5 in CA-:.'. 8o. /88/1-', shows that it reversed the trial courtBs 9ecision 6 findin% petitioner to be entitled to re%ister the lands in question under its ownership, on its evaluation of evidence and conclusion of facts. The Court of Appeals found that petitioner did not &eet the require&ent of /1 years possession for acquisitive prescription over Fots 0 and /. 8either did it satisfy the require&ent of 11 years possession for ordinary acquisitive prescription because of the absence of 3ust title. The appellate court did not believe the findin%s of the trial court that Fot 0 was acquired fro& "uan #alde@ by purchase and Fot / was acquired also by purchase fro& A%&idio Octaviano by petitioner #icar because there was absolutely no docu&entary evidence to support the sa&e and the alle%ed purchases were never &entioned in the application for re%istration. $y the very ad&ission of petitioner #icar, Fots 0 and / were owned by #alde@ and Octaviano. $oth #alde@ and Octaviano had ;ree (atent Application for those lots since 1 1.. The predecessors of private respondents, not petitioner #icar, were in possession of the questioned lots since 1 1.. There is evidence that petitioner #icar occupied Fots 1 and !, which are not in question, but not Fots 0 and /, because the buildin%s standin% thereon were only constructed after liberation in 1 !2. (etitioner #icar only declared Fots 0 and / for ta6ation purposes in 1 21. The i&prove&ents oil Fots 1, 0, /, ! were paid for by the $ishop but said $ishop was appointed only in 1 !-, the church was constructed only in 1 21 and the new convent only 0 years before the trial in 1 ./. Dhen petitioner #icar was notified of the oppositorBs clai&s, the parish priest offered to buy the lot fro& ;ructuoso #alde@. Fots 0 and / were surveyed by request of petitioner #icar only in 1 .0. (rivate respondents were able to prove that their predecessorsB house was borrowed by petitioner #icar after the church and the convent were destroyed. They never as,ed for the return of the house, but when they allowed its free use, they beca&e bailors in commodatum and the petitioner the bailee. The baileesB failure to return the sub3ect &atter of commodatum to the bailor did not &ean adverse possession on the part of the borrower. The bailee held in trust the property sub3ect &atter of co&&odatu&. The adverse clai& of petitioner ca&e only in 1 21 when it declared the lots for ta6ation purposes. The action of petitioner #icar by such adverse clai& could not ripen into title by way of ordinary acquisitive prescription because of the absence of 3ust title. The Court of Appeals found that the predecessors-in-interest and private respondents were possessors under clai& of ownership in %ood faith fro& 1 1.< that petitioner #icar was only a bailee in commodatum< and that the adverse clai& and repudiation of trust ca&e only in 1 21.

De find no reason to disre%ard or reverse the rulin% of the Court of Appeals in CA-:.'. 8o. /88/1-'. )ts findin%s of fact have beco&e incontestible. This Court declined to review said decision, thereby in effect, affir&in% it. )t has beco&e final and e6ecutory a lon% ti&e a%o. 'espondent appellate court did not co&&it any reversible error, &uch less %rave abuse of discretion, when it held that the 9ecision of the Court of Appeals in CA-:.'. 8o. /88/1-' is %overnin%, under the principle of res 3udicata, hence the rule, in the present cases CA-:.'. 8o. 121!8 and CA-:.'. 8o. 121! . The facts as supported by evidence established in that decision &ay no lon%er be altered. D7A'A;O'A A89 $G 'AA+O8 O; T7A ;O'A:O)8:, this petition is 9A8)A9 for lac, of &erit, the 9ecision dated Au%. /1, 1 8- in CA:.'. 8os. 121!8 and 121! , by respondent Court of Appeals is A;;)'MA9, with costs a%ainst petitioner. +O O'9A'A9. .ar*asa, $ru , Gri/o-A0uino and !edialdea, %%., concur.

+ACO89 9)#)+)O8 H:.'. 8o. F-!.1!2. 8ove&ber 0., 1 8..I R !"#LIC O$ %& !&ILI!!IN ' :#"R *" O$ L*N+'; , petitioner, vs. %& &ON. CO"R% O$ *!! *L', & IR' O$ +O,INGO !. #*LO8, repre/e.ted b3 RIC*R+O #*LO8, % *L. ,respondents. 'elae , %alandoni, Adriano, and Associates for respondents.

+ !*R*', % p*

CI'ION

This case ori%inally e&anated fro& a decision of the then Court of ;irst )nstance of Ka&bales in F'C Case 8o. 11-1, F'C 'ecord 8o. 80 /22, denyin% respondentsB application for re%istration. ;ro& said order of denial the applicants, heirs of 9o&in%o $aloy, represented by 'icardo (. $aloy, =herein private respondents> interposed on appeal to the Court of Appeals which was doc,eted as CA-:.'. 8o. 201/ -'. The appellate court, thru its ;ifth 9ivision with the 7on. "ustice Ma%no :at&aitan as ponente, rendered a decision dated ;ebruary /, 1 -- reversin% the decision appealed fro& and thus approvin% the application for re%istration. Oppositors =petitioners herein> filed their Motion for 'econsideration alle%in% a&on% other thin%s that applicantsB possessory infor&ation title can no lon%er be invo,ed and that they were not able to prove a re%isterable title over the land. +aid Motion for 'econsideration was denied, hence this petition for review on certiorari. ApplicantsB clai& is anchored on their possessory infor&ation title =A6hibit ; which had been translated in A6hibit ;-1> coupled with their continuous, adverse and public possession over the land in question. An e6a&ination of the possessory infor&ation title shows that the description and the area of the land stated therein substantially coincides with the land applied for and that said possessory infor&ation title had been re%ularly issued havin% been acquired by applicantsB predecessor, 9o&in%o $aloy, under the provisions of the +panish Mort%a%e Faw. Applicants presented their ta6 declaration on said lands on April 8, 1 .2. The 9irector of Fands opposed the re%istration alle%in% that this land had beco&e public land thru the operation of Act .0- of the (hilippine Co&&ission. On 8ove&ber 0., 1 10 pursuant to the e6ecutive order of the (resident of the 5.+., the area was declared within the 5.+. 8aval 'eservation. 5nder Act .0- as a&ended by Act 11/8, a period was fi6ed within which persons affected thereby could file their application, =that is within . &onths fro& "uly 8, 1 12> otherwise Cthe said lands or interests therein will be conclusively ad3ud%ed to be public lands and all clai&s on the part of private individuals for such lands or interests therein not to presented will be forever barred.C (etitioner ar%ues that since 9o&in%o $aloy failed to file his clai& within the prescribed period, the land had beco&e irrevocably public and could not be the sub3ect of a valid re%istration for private ownership. Considerin% the fore%oin% facts respondent Court of Appeals ruled as follows* C. . . perhaps, the consequence was that upon failure of 9o&in%o $aloy to have filed his application within that period the land had beco&e irrevocably public< but perhaps also, for the reason that warnin% was fro& the Cler, of the Court of Fand 'e%istration, na&ed ".'. Dilson and there has not been presented a for&al order or decision of the said Court of Fand 'e%istration so declarin% the land public because of that failure, it can with plausibility be said that after all, there was no 3udicial declaration to that effect, it is true that the 5.+. 8avy did occupy it apparently-for so&e ti&e, as a recreation area, as this Court understands fro& the co&&unication of the 9epart&ent of ;orei%n Affairs to the 5.+. A&bassy e6hibited in the record, but the very tenor of the co&&unication apparently see,s to 3ustify the title of herein applicants, in other words, what this Court has ta,en fro& the occupation by the 5.+. 8avy is that durin% the interi&, the title of applicants was in a state of suspended ani&ation so to spea, but it had not died either< and the fact bein% that this land was really ori%inally private fro& and after the issuance and inscription of the possessory infor&ation A6h. ; durin% the +panish ti&es, it would be &ost difficult to sustain position of 9irector of Fands that it was land of no private owner< open to public i&position, and over which he has control< and since i&&ediately after 5.+. 8avy had abandoned the area, applicant ca&e in and asserted title once a%ain, only to be troubled by first Crispiniano $lanco who however in due ti&e, quitclai&ed in favor of applicants, and then by private oppositors now, apparently ori%inally tenants of $lanco, but that entry of private oppositors sou%ht to be %iven color of ownership when they sou%ht to and did file ta6 declaration in 1 .2, should not pre3udice the ori%inal ri%hts of applicants thru their possessory infor&ation secured re%ularly so lon% a%o, the conclusion &ust have to be that after all, applicants had succeeded in brin%in% the&selves within the provisions of +ec. 1 of Act ! ., the land should be re%istered in their favor< )8 #)AD D7A'AO;, this Court is constrained to reverse, as it now reverses, 3ud%&ent appealed fro& the application is approved, and once this decision shall have beco&e final, if ever it would be, let decree issue in favor of applicants with the personal circu&stances outlined in the application, costs a%ainst private oppositors.C

(etitioner now co&es to 5s with the followin%* CA++):8MA8T O; A''O'+C 1'espondent court erred in holdin% that to bar private respondents fro& assertin% any ri%ht under their possessory infor&ation title there is need for a court order to that effect. 0.'espondent court erred in not holdin% that private respondentsB ri%hts by virtue of their possessory infor&ation title was lost by prescription. /.'espondent court erred in concludin% that applicants have re%isterable title. A cursory readin% of +ec. /, Act .0- reveals that several steps are to be followed before any affected land can C &e conclusi*ely adjud#ed to &e pu&lic land.C +ec. /, Act .0- reads as follows* C+AC. /.)&&ediately upon receipt of the notice fro& the Civil :overnor in the preceedin% section &entioned it shall be the duty of the 3ud%e of the Court of Fand 'e%istration to issue a notice, statin% that the lands within the li&its aforesaid have been reserved for &ilitary purposes, and announced and declared to be &ilitary reservations, and that clai&s for all private lands, buildin%s, and interests therein, within the li&its aforesaid, &ust be presented for re%istration under the Fand 'e%istration Act within si6 calendar &onths fro& the date of issuin% the notice, and that all lands, buildin%s, and interests therein within the li&its aforesaid not so presented within the ti&e therein li&ited will be conclusively ad3ud%ed to be public lands, and all clai&s on the part of private individuals for such lands, buildin%s, or an interest therein not so presented will be forever barred. The cler, of the Court of Fand 'e%istration shall i&&ediately upon the issuin% of such notice by the 3ud%e cause the sa&e to be published once a wee, for three successive wee,s in two newspapers, one of which newspapers shall be in the An%lish lan%ua%e, and one in the +panish lan%ua%e in the city or province where the land lies, if there be no such +panish or An%lish newspapers havin% a %eneral circulation in the city or province wherein the land lies, then it shall be a sufficient co&pliance with this section if the notice be published as herein provided, in a daily newspaper in the +panish lan%ua%e and one in the An%lish lan%ua%e, in the City of Manila, havin% a %eneral circulation. The cler, shall also cause a duly attested copy of the notice in the +panish lan%ua%e to be posted in conspicuous place at each an%le for&ed by the lines of the li&its of the land reserved. The cler, shall also issue and cause to be personally served the notice in the +panish lan%ua%e upon every person livin% upon or in visible possession of any part of the &ilitary reservation. )f the person in possession is the head of the fa&ily brin% upon the land, it shall be sufficient to serve the notice upon hi&, and if he is absent it shall be sufficient to leave a copy at his usual place of residence. The cler, shall certify the &anner in which the notices have been published, posted, and served, and his certificate shall be conclusive proof of such publication, postin%, and service, but the court shall have power to cause such further notice to be %iven as in its opinion &ay be necessary.C Clearly under said provision, private land could be dee&ed to have beco&e public land only by virtue of a 3udicial declaration after due notice and hearin%. )t runs contrary therefore to the contention of petitioners that failure to present clai&s set forth under +ec. 0 of Act .0- &ade the land ipso facto public without any need of 3udicial pronounce&ent. (etitioner in &a,in% such declaration relied on +ec. ! of Act .0- alone. $ut in construin% a statute the entire provisions of the law &ust be considered in order to establish the correct interpretation as intended by the law-&a,in% body. Act .0- by its ter&s is not self-e6ecutory and requires i&ple&entation by the Court of Fand 'e%istration. Act .0-, to the e6tent that it creates a forfeiture, is a penal statute in dero%ation of private ri%hts, so it &ust be strictly construed so as to safe%uard private respondentsB ri%hts. +i%nificantly, petitioner does not even alle%e the e6istence of any 3ud%&ent of the Fand 'e%istration court with respect to the land in question. Dithout a 3ud%&ent or order declarin% the land to be public, its private character and the possessory infor&ation title over it &ust be respected. +ince no such order has been rendered by the Fand 'e%istration Court it necessarily follows that it never beca&e public land thru the operation of Act .0-. To assu&e otherwise is to deprive private respondents of their property without due process of law. )n fact it can be presu&ed that the notice required by law to be %iven by publication and by personal service did not include the na&e of 9o&in%o $aloy and the sub3ect land, and hence he and his land were never brou%ht within the operation of Act .0- as a&ended. The procedure laid down in +ec. / is a require&ent of due process. C9ue process requires that the statutes under which it is atte&pted to deprive a citi@en of private property without or a%ainst his consent &ust, as in e6propriation cases, be strictly co&plied with, because such statutes are in dero%ation of %eneral ri%hts.C =Arriete vs. 9irector of (ublic Dor,s, 28 (hil. 21-, 218, 211>.

De also find with favor private respondentsB views that court 3ud%&ents are not to be presu&ed. )t would be absurd to spea, of a 3ud%&ent by presu&ption. )f it could be contended that such a 3ud%&ent &ay be presu&ed, it could equally be contended that applicantsB predecessor 9o&in%o $aloy presu&ably seasonably filed a clai&, in accordance with the le%al presu&ption that a person ta,es ordinary care of his concerns, and that a 3ud%&ent in his favor was rendered. The findin% of respondent court that durin% the interi& of 2- years fro& 8ove&ber 0., 1 10 to 9ece&ber 1-, 1 2 =when the 5.+. 8avy possessed the area> the possessory ri%hts of $aloy or heirs were &erely suspended and not lost by prescription, is supported by A6hibit C5,C a co&&unication or letter 8o. 1118-./, dated "une 0!, 1 ./, which contains an official state&ent of the position of the 'epublic of the (hilippines with re%ard to the status of the land in question. +aid letter reco%ni@es the fact that 9o&in%o $aloy andJor his heirs have been in continuous possession of said land since 18 ! as attested by an C)nfor&acion (ossessoriaC Title, which was %ranted by the +panish :overn&ent. 7ence, the disputed property is private land and this possession was interrupted only by the

occupation of the land by the 5.+. 8avy in 1 !2 for recreational purposes. The 5.+. 8avy eventually abandoned the pre&ises. The heirs of the late 9o&in%o (. $aloy, are now in actual possession, and this has been so since the abandon&ent by the 5.+. 8avy. A new recreation area is now bein% used by the 5.+. 8avy personnel and this place is re&ote fro& the land in question. Clearly, the occupancy of the 5.+. 8avy was not in the concept of owner. )t parta,es of the character of a commodatum.)t cannot therefore &ilitate a%ainst the title of 9o&in%o $aloy and his successors-in-interest. OneBs ownership of a thin% &ay be lost by prescription by reason of anotherBs possession if such possession be under clai& of ownership, not where the possession is only intended to be transient, as in the case of the 5.+. 8avyBs occupation of the land concerned, in which case the owner is not divested of his title, althou%h it cannot be e6ercised in the &eanti&e. D7A'A;O'A, pre&ises considered, findin% no &erit in the petition the appealed decision is hereby A;;)'MA9. prFF +O O'9A'A9. 1eria, Alampay and 1eliciano, << "" ., concur. 1ernan, % ., no part. Gutierre , %r., % ., ) concur pro hoc vice in the results.

G.R. No. L-46246

No=ember 9, 1999

,*RG*RI%* >"IN%O' a.d *NG L *. *N'*L+O, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. # C?, defendant-appellee. !auricio $arlos for appellants. 1elipe "uencamino, %r. for appellee. I,! RI*L, J.: The plaintiff brou%ht this action to co&pel the defendant to return her certain furniture which she lent hi& for his use. +he appealed fro& the 3ud%&ent of the Court of ;irst )nstance of Manila which ordered that the defendant return to her the three has heaters and the four electric la&ps found in the possession of the +heriff of said city, that she call for the other furniture fro& the said sheriff of Manila at her own e6pense, and that the fees which the +heriff &ay char%e for the deposit of the furniture be paid pro rata by both parties, without pronounce&ent as to the costs. The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and as such occupied the latterBs house on M. 7. del (ilar street, 8o. 11-2. On "anuary 1!, 1 /., upon the novation of the contract of lease between the plaintiff and the defendant, the for&er %ratuitously %ranted to the latter the use of the furniture described in the third para%raph of the stipulation of facts, sub3ect to the condition that the defendant would return the& to the plaintiff upon the latterBs de&and. The plaintiff sold the property to Maria Fope@ and 'osario Fope@ and on +epte&ber 1!, 1 /., these three notified the defendant of the conveyance, %ivin% hi& si6ty days to vacate the pre&ises under one of the clauses of the contract of lease. There after the plaintiff required the defendant to return all the furniture transferred to hi& for the& in the house where they were found. On 8ove&ber 2, 1 /., the defendant, throu%h another person, wrote to the plaintiff reiteratin% that she &ay call for the furniture in the %round floor of the house. On the -th of the sa&e &onth, the defendant wrote another letter to the plaintiff infor&in% her that he could not %ive up the three %as heaters and the four electric la&ps because he would use the& until the 12th of the sa&e &onth when the lease in due to e6pire. The plaintiff refused to %et the furniture in view of the fact that the defendant had declined to &a,e delivery of all of the&. On 8ove&ber 12th, before vacatin% the house, the defendant deposited with the +heriff all the furniture belon%in% to the plaintiff and they are now on deposit in the warehouse situated at 8o. 1201, 'i@al Avenue, in the custody of the said sheriff. )n their seven assi%ned errors the plaintiffs contend that the trial court incorrectly applied the law* in holdin% that they violated the contract by not callin% for all the furniture on 8ove&ber 2, 1 /., when the defendant placed the& at their disposal< in not orderin% the defendant to pay the& the value of the furniture in case they are not delivered< in holdin% that they should %et all the furniture fro& the +heriff at their e6penses< in orderin% the& to pay-half of the e6penses clai&ed by the +heriff for the deposit of the furniture< in rulin% that both parties should pay their respective le%al e6penses or the costs< and in denyin% pay their respective le%al e6penses or the costs< and in denyin% the &otions for reconsideration and new trial. To dispose of the case, it is only necessary to decide whether the defendant co&plied with his obli%ation to return the furniture upon the plaintiffBs de&and< whether the latter is bound to bear the deposit fees thereof, and whether she is entitled to the costs of liti%ation. la2phi3.net The contract entered into between the parties is one of commadatum, because under it the plaintiff %ratuitously %ranted the use of the furniture to the defendant, reservin% for herself the ownership thereof< by this contract the defendant bound hi&self to return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latters de&and =clause - of the contract, A6hibit A< articles 1-!1, para%raph 1, and 1-!1 of the Civil Code>. The obli%ation voluntarily assu&ed by the defendant to return the furniture upon the plaintiffBs de&and, &eans that he should return all of the& to the plaintiff at the latterBs residence or house. The defendant did not co&ply with this obli%ation when he &erely placed the& at the disposal of the plaintiff, retainin% for his benefit the three %as heaters and the four eletric la&ps. The provisions of article 11. of the Civil Code cited by counsel for the parties are not squarely applicable. The trial court, therefore, erred when it ca&e to the le%al conclusion that the plaintiff failed to co&ply with her obli%ation to %et the furniture when they were offered to her. As the defendant had voluntarily underta,en to return all the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latterBs de&and, the Court could not le%ally co&pel her to bear the e6penses occasioned by the deposit of the furniture at the defendantBs 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 %as heaters and the four electric la&ps. As to the value of the furniture, we do not believe that the plaintiff is entitled to the pay&ent thereof by the defendant in case of his inability to return so&e of the furniture because under para%raph . of the stipulation of facts, the defendant has neither a%reed to nor ad&itted the correctness of the said value. +hould the defendant fail to deliver so&e of the furniture, the value thereof should be latter deter&ined by the trial Court throu%h evidence which the parties &ay desire to present. The costs in both instances should be borne by the defendant because the plaintiff is the prevailin% party =section !8- of the Code of Civil (rocedure>. 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 plaintiffBs de&and. )n these circu&stances, it is 3ust and equitable that he pay the le%al e6penses and other 3udicial costs which the plaintiff would not have otherwise defrayed. The appealed 3ud%&ent is &odified and the defendant is ordered to return and deliver to the plaintiff, in the residence to return and deliver to the plaintiff, in the residence or house of the latter, all the furniture described in para%raph / of the stipulation of facts

A6hibit A. The e6penses which &ay be occasioned by the delivery to and deposit of the furniture with the +heriff shall be for the account of the defendant. the defendant shall pay the costs in both instances. +o ordered. A*ance/a, $.%., Villa-Real, Laurel, $oncepcion and !oran, %%., concur.

G.R. No. L-4156

$ebruar3 16, 1916

$ LI@ + LO' '*N%O', plaintiff-appelle, vs. *G"'%IN* (*RR*, adm-.-/tratr-0 o1 the e/tate o1 ,a4da2e.o (-me.ea, decea/ed, defendant-appellant. !atias )ilado, for appellant. %ose 1eli4 !artine , for appellee. %ORR ', J.: On the 1st of +epte&ber, 1 1., ;eli6 de los +antos brou%ht suit a%ainst A%ustina "arra, the ad&inistratri6 of the estate of Ma%daleno "i&enea, alle%in% that in the latter part of 1 11 "i&enea borrowed and obtained fro& the plaintiff ten first-class carabaos, to be used at the ani&al-power &ill of his hacienda durin% the season of 1 11-0, without reco&pense or re&uneration whatever for the use thereof, under the sole condition that they should be returned to the owner as soon as the wor, at the &ill was ter&inated< that Ma%daleno "i&enea, however, did not return the carabaos, notwithstandin% the fact that the plaintiff clai&ed their return after the wor, at the &ill was finished< that Ma%daleno "i&enea died on the 08th of October, 1 1!, and the defendant herein was appointed by the Court of ;irst )nstance of Occidental 8e%ros ad&inistratri6 of his estate and she too, over the ad&inistration of the sa&e and is still perfor&in% her duties as such ad&inistratri6< that the plaintiff presented his clai& to the co&&issioners of the estate of "i&enea, within the le%al ter&, for the return of the said ten carabaos, but the said co&&issioners re3ected his clai& as appears in their report< therefore, the plaintiff prayed that 3ud%&ent be entered a%ainst the defendant as ad&inistratri6 of the estate of the deceased, orderin% her to return the ten first-class carabaos loaned to the late "i&enea, or their present value, and to pay the costs. The defendant was duly su&&oned, and on the 02th of +epte&ber, 1 1., she de&urred in writin% to the co&plaint on the %round that it was va%ue< but on the 0d of October of the sa&e year, in answer to the co&plaint, she said that it was true that the late Ma%daleno "i&enea as,ed the plaintiff to loan hi& ten carabaos, but that he only obtained three second-class ani&als, which were afterwards transferred by sale by the plaintiff to the said "i&enea< that she denied the alle%ations contained in para%raph / of the co&plaint< for all of which she as,ed the court to absolve her of the co&plaint with the cost a%ainst the plaintiff. $y a writin% dated the 11th of 9ece&ber, 1 1., Attorney "ose ;eli6 Martine@ notified the defendant and her counsel, Matias 7ilado, that he had &ade an a%ree&ent with the plaintiff to the effect that the latter would not co&pro&ise the controversy without his consent, and that as fees for his professional services he was to receive one half of the a&ount allowed in the 3ud%&ent if the sa&e were entered in favor of the plaintiff. The case ca&e up for trial, evidence was adduced by both parties, and either e6hibits were &ade of record. On the 11th of "anuary, 1 1-, the court below entered 3ud%&ent sentencin% A%ustina "arra, as ad&inistratri6 of the estate of Ma%daleno "i&enea, to return to the plaintiff, ;eli6 de los +antos, the re&ainin% si6 second and third class carabaos, or the value thereof at the rate of (101 each, or a total of (-01 with the costs. Counsel for the defendant e6cepted to the fore%oin% 3ud%&ent, and, by a writin% dated "anuary 1 , &oved for anew trial on the %round that the findin%s of fact were openly and &anifestly contrary to the wei%ht of the evidence. The &otion was overruled, the defendant duly e6cepted, and in due course sub&itted the correspondin% bill of e6ceptions, which was approved and sub&itted to this court. The defendant has ad&itted that Ma%daleno "i&enea as,ed the plaintiff for the loan of ten carabaos which are now clai&ed by the latter, as shown by two letters addressed by the said "i&enea to ;eli6 de los +antos< but in her answer the said defendant alle%ed that the late "i&enea only obtained three second-class carabaos, which were subsequently sold to hi& by the owner, +antos< therefore, in order to decide this liti%ation it is indispensable that proof be forthco&in% that "i&enea only received three carabaos fro& his son-inlaw +antos, and that they were sold by the latter to hi&. The record discloses that it has been fully proven fro& the testi&ony of a sufficient nu&ber of witnesses that the plaintiff, +antos, sent in char%e of various persons the ten carabaos requested by his father-in-law, Ma%daleno "i&enea, in the two letters produced at the trial by the plaintiff, and that "i&enea received the& in the presence of so&e of said persons, one bein% a brother of said "i&enea, who saw the ani&als arrive at the hacienda where it was proposed to e&ploy the&. ;our died of rinderpest, and it is for this reason that the 3ud%&ent appealed fro& only deals with si6 survivin% carabaos. The alle%ed purchase of three carabaos by "i&enea fro& his son-in-law +antos is not evidenced by any trustworthy docu&ents such as those of transfer, nor were the declarations of the witnesses presented by the defendant affir&in% it satisfactory< for said reason it can not be considered that "i&enea only received three carabaos on loan fro& his son-in-law, and that he afterwards ,ept the& definitely by virtue of the purchase. $y the laws in force the transfer of lar%e cattle was and is still &ade by &eans of official docu&ents issued by the local authorities< these docu&ents constitute the title of ownership of the carabao or horse so acquired. ;urther&ore, not only should the purchaser be provided with a new certificate or credential, a docu&ent which has not been produced in evidence by the defendant, nor has the loss of the sa&e been shown in the case, but the old docu&ents ou%ht to be on file in the &unicipality, or they should have been delivered to the new purchaser, and in the case at bar neither did the defendant present the old credential on which should be stated the na&e of the previous owner of each of the three carabaos said to have been sold by the plaintiff.

;ro& the fore%oin% it &ay be lo%ically inferred that the carabaos loaned or %iven on co&&odatu& to the now deceased Ma%daleno "i&enea were ten in nu&ber< that they, or at any rate the si6 survivin% ones, have not been returned to the owner thereof, ;eli6 de los +antos, and that it is not true that the latter sold to the for&er three carabaos that the purchaser was already usin%< therefore, as the said si6 carabaos were not the property of the deceased nor of any of his descendants, it is the duty of the ad&inistratri6 of the estate to return the& or inde&nify the owner for their value. The Civil Code, in dealin% with loans in %eneral, fro& which %eneric deno&ination the specific one of co&&odatu& is derived, establishes prescriptions in relation to the last-&entioned contract by the followin% articles* A'T. 1-!1. $y the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to the other, either anythin% not perishable, in order that the latter &ay use it durin% a certain period and return it to the for&er, in which case it is called co&&odatu&, or &oney or any other perishable thin%, under the condition to return an equal a&ount of the sa&e ,ind and quality, in which case it is &erely called a loan. Co&&odatu& is essentially %ratuitous. A si&ple loan &ay be %ratuitous, or &ade under a stipulation to pay interest. A'T. 1-!1. The bailee acquires retains the ownership of the thin% loaned. The bailee acquires the use thereof, but not its fruits< if any co&pensation is involved, to be paid by the person requirin% the use, the a%ree&ent ceases to be a co&&odatu&. A'T. 1-!0. The obli%ations and ri%hts which arise fro& the co&&odatu& pass to the heirs of both contractin% parties, unless the loan has been in consideration for the person of the bailee, in which case his heirs shall not have the ri%ht to continue usin% the thin% loaned. The carabaos delivered to be used not bein% returned by the defendant upon de&and, there is no doubt that she is under obli%ation to inde&nify the owner thereof by payin% hi& their value. Article 1111 of said code reads* Those who in fulfillin% their obli%ations are %uilty of fraud, ne%li%ence, or delay, and those who in any &anner whatsoever act in contravention of the stipulations of the sa&e, shall be sub3ected to inde&nify for the losses and da&a%es caused thereby. The obli%ation of the bailee or of his successors to return either the thin% loaned or its value, is sustained by the supre&e tribunal of +apin. )n its decision of March 01, 18 2, it sets out with precision the le%al doctrine touchin% co&&odatu& as follows* Althou%h it is true that in a contract of co&&odatu& the bailor retains the ownership of the thin% loaned, and at the e6piration of the period, or after the use for which it was loaned has been acco&plished, it is the i&perative duty of the bailee to return the thin% itself to its owner, or to pay hi& da&a%es if throu%h the fault of the bailee the thin% should have been lost or in3ured, it is clear that where public securities are involved, the trial court, in deferrin% to the clai& of the bailor that the a&ount loaned be returned hi& by the bailee in bonds of the sa&e class as those which constituted the contract, thereby properly applies law of title 11 of partida 2. Dith re%ard to the third assi%n&ent of error, based on the fact that the plaintiff +antos had not appealed fro& the decision of the co&&issioners re3ectin% his clai& for the recovery of his carabaos, it is sufficient to estate that we are not dealin% with a clai& for the pay&ent of a certain su&, the collection of a debt fro& the estate, or pay&ent for losses and da&a%es =sec. 11 , Code of Civil (rocedure>, but with the e6clusion fro& the inventory of the property of the late "i&enea, or fro& his capital, of si6 carabaos which did not belon% to hi&, and which for&ed no part of the inheritance. The de&and for the e6clusion of the said carabaos belon%in% to a third party and which did not for& part of the property of the deceased, &ust be the sub3ect of a direct decision of the court in an ordinary action, wherein the ri%ht of the third party to the property which he see,s to have e6cluded fro& the inheritance and the ri%ht of the deceased has been discussed, and rendered in view of the result of the evidence adduced by the ad&inistrator of the estate and of the clai&ant, since it is so provided by the second part of section . and by section -1/ of the Code of Civil (rocedure< the refusal of the co&&issioners before who& the plaintiff unnecessarily appeared can not affect nor reduce the unquestionable ri%ht of ownership of the latter, inas&uch as there is no law nor principle of 3ustice authori@in% the successors of the late "i&enea to enrich the&selves at the cost and to the pre3udice of ;eli6 de los +antos. ;or the reasons above set forth, by which the errors assi%ned to the 3ud%&ent appealed fro& have been refuted, and considerin% that the sa&e is in accordance with the law and the &erits of the case, it is our opinion that it should be affir&ed and we do hereby affir& it with the costs a%ainst the appellant. +o ordered.