1

G.R. No. 6913 1913-11-21 Roman Catholic Bishop vs De La Pena 26 PHIL 144 THE ROMA CATHOLIC BI!HOP O" #ARO$ plainti%%&appellee$ vs' (RE(ORIO DE LA PE A$ a)minist*ato* o% the estate o% "athe* A+,stin )e la Pena$ )e%en)ant&appellant' G.R. No. 6913 | 1913-11-21 This is an appeal by the defendant from a jud ment of the !ourt of "irst #nstan$e of #loilo% a&ardin to the plaintiff the sum of '6%6(1% &ith interest at the le al rate from the be innin of the a$tion.

military authorities that he &as an insur ent and that the funds thus deposited had been $olle$ted by him for re-olutionary purposes. The money &as ta0en from the ban0 by the military authorities by -irtue of su$h order% &as $onfis$ated and turned o-er to the Go-ernment.

6hile there is $onsiderable dispute in the $ase o-er the )uestion &hether the '6%6(1 of trust funds &as in$luded in the '19%111 deposited as aforesaid% ne-ertheless% a $areful e7amination of the $ase leads us to the $on$lusion that said trust funds &ere a part of the funds deposited and &hi$h &ere remo-ed and $onfis$ated by the military authorities of the 5nited 3tates.

#t is established in this $ase that the plaintiff is the trustee of a $haritable be)uest made for the $onstru$tion of a leper hospital and that "ather * ustin de la 'e+a &as the duly authori,ed representati-e of the plaintiff to re$ei-e the le a$y. The defendant is the administrator of the estate of "ather .e la 'e+a.

4ran$h of the la& 0no& in 8n land and *meri$a as the la& of the trusts had no e7a$t $ounterpart in the Roman la& and is more has none under the 3panish la&% #n this jurisdi$tion% therefore% "ather dela 'e+a9s liability is determined by those portions of the !i-il !ode &hi$h relate to obli ations :4oo0 (% Title 1.;

#n the year 1/9/ the boo0s of "ather de la 'e+a% as trustee% shoed that he had on hand as su$h trustee the sum of '6%6(1% $olle$ted by him for the $haritable purposes aforesaid. #n the same year he deposited in his personal a$$ount '19%111 in the 2on 0on and 3han hai 4an0 at #loilo. 3hortly thereafter and durin the &ar of the re-olution% "ather dela 'e+a &as arrested by the military authorities as a politi$al prisoner% and &hile thus detained made an order on said ban0 in fa-or of the 5nited 3tates *rmy offi$er under &hose $har e he then &as so for the sum thus deposited in said ban0. The arrest of "ather de la 'e+a and the $onfis$ation of the funds in the ban0 &ere the result of the $laim of the

*lthou h the !i-il !ode states that a <person obli ed to i-e somethin is also bound to preser-e it &ith the dili en$e pertainin to a ood father of a family< :art. 119(;% it also pro-ides% follo&in the prin$iple of the Roman la&% major $asus est% $ui humana infirmitas resistere non potest% that <no one shall be liable for e-ents &hi$h $ould not be foreseen% or &hi$h ha-in been foreseen &ere ine-itable% &ith the e7$eptions of the $ases e7pressly mentioned in the la& of those in &hi$h the obli ation so de$lares.< :*rt. 111=;.

4y pla$in the money in the ban0 and mi7in it &ith his personal funds .e la 'e+a did not thereby assume an obli ation different from that under &hi$h he &ould ha-e lain if su$h deposit had not been made% nor did he thereby ma0e himself liable to repay the money at all ha,ards. #f the money had been for$ibly ta0e from his po$0et or from his house by the military for$es of one of the $ombatants durin a state of &ar% it is $lear that under the pro-isions of the !i-il !ode he &ould ha-e been e7empt from responsibility. The fa$t that he pla$ed the trust fund in the ban0 is his personal a$$ount does not add to his responsibility. 3u$h deposit did not ma0e him a debtor &ho must respond at all the ha,ards.

The $ourt% therefore% finds and de$lares that the money &hi$h is the subje$t matter of this a$tion &as deposited by "ather .e la 'e+a in the 2on 0on and 3han hai 4an0in !orporation of #loilo? that said money &as for$ibly ta0en from the ban0 by the armed for$es of the 5nited 3tates durin the &ar of the insurre$tion? and that said "ather .e la 'e+a &as not responsible for its loss.

The jud ment is therefore re-ersed% and it is de$reed that the plaintiff shall ta0e nothin by his $omplaint.

6e do not enter into a dis$ussion for the purpose of determinin &hether he a$ted more or less ne li ently by depositin the money in the ban0 than he &ould if had left it in his home> or &hether he &as more or less ne li ent by depositin the money in his personal a$$ount than he &ould ha-e been if had deposited it in a separate a$$ount as trustee. 6e re ard su$h dis$ussion as substantially fruitless% inasmu$h as the pre$ise )uestion is not one of the ne li en$e. There &as no la& prohibitin him from depositin it as he did and there &as no la& &hi$h $han ed his responsibility by reason of the deposit% 6hile it may be true that one &ho is under obli ation to do or i-e a thin s is in duty bound% &hen he sees e-ents approa$hin the results of &hi$h &ill be dan erous to his trust% to ta0e all reasonable means and measures to es$ape or% if una-oidable% to temper the effe$ts of those e-ents% &e do not been $onstrained to hold that% in $hoosin bet&een t&o means e)ually le al% he is $ulpably ne li ent in sele$tin ne li ent in sele$tin one &hereas he &ould not ha-e been if he had sele$ted the other.

*rellano% !.@. Torres and !arson% @@.% $on$ur.

!epa*ate Opinions

TRE T$ #'$ )issentin+-

# dissent. Te$hni$ally spea0in % &hether "ather .e la 'e+a &as a trustee or an a ent of the plaintiff his boo0s sho&ed that in 1/9/ he had in his possessions as trustee or a ent or a trustee or an a ent of the plaintiff his boo0s sho&ed that in 1/9/ he had in his possession as trustee or a ent the sum of '6%6(1 belon in to the plaintiff as the head of the $hur$h. This money &as then $lothed &ith all the immunities and prote$tion &ith &hi$h the la& see0s to in-est trust funds. 4ut &hen .e la 'e+a missed this trust fund &ith his o&n and deposited the &hole in the ban0 to his personal a$$ount or $redit% he by this a$t stamped on the said funds his

o&n pri-ate mar0s and un$lothed it of all the prote$tion it had. #f this money had bee deposited in the name of .e la 'e+a as trustee of a ent of the plaintiff% # thin0 that it my presumed that the military authorities &ould not ha-e $onfis$ated it for the reason that they &ere loo0in for insur ent funds only. * ain% the plaintiff had no reason to suppose that .e la 'e+a &ould attempt to strip the fund of its identity% not had he said or done anythin &hi$h tended to relie-e .e la 'e+a from the le al responsibility &hi$h pertains to the $are and $ustody of trust funds.

re ulatin the )uestion. Buestions of this $hara$ter are not usually o-erned by statutory la&. The la& is to be found in the -ery nature of the trust itself% and% as a eneral rule% the $ourts say &hat fa$ts are ne$essary to hold the trustee as a debtor.

The 3upreme !ourt of the 5nited 3tates in 5nited 3tates -s. Thomas :/2 5.3.% 33A;% at pa e 3(3% said> <Trustees are only bound to e7er$ise the same $are and soli$itude &ith re ard to their o&n. 8)uity &ill not e7a$t more of them. They are not liable for a loss by theft &ithout their fault. 4ut this e7emption $eases &hen they mi7 the trust money &ith their o&n% &hereby it loses its identity% and they be$ome mere debtors.<

#f this proposition is sound and appli$able to $ases arisin in this jurisdi$tion% and # entertain no doubt on this point the liability of the estate of .e la 'e+a $annot be doubted. 4ut this $ourt in the majority opinion says> <The fa$t that he :* ustin de la 'e+a; pla$ed the trust fund in the ban0 in his personal a$$ount does not add to his responsibility. 3u$h deposit did not ma0e him a debtor &ho must respond at all ha,ards . . . There &as no la& prohibitin him from depositin it as he did% and there &as no la& &hi$h $han ed his responsibility% by reason of the deposit.<

#f .e la 'e+a% after depositin the trust fund in his personal a$$ount% had used this money for spe$ulati-e purposes% su$h as the buyin and sellin of su ar or other produ$ts of the $ountry% thereby be$omin a debtor% there &ould ha-e been no doubt as to the liability of his estate. 6hether he used this money for that purpose the re$ord is silent% but it &ill be noted that a $onsiderable len th of time inter-ened from the time of the deposit until the funds &ere $onfis$ated by the military authorities. #n fa$t the re$ord sho&s that .e la 'e+a deposited on @une 2A% 1/9/% '=%2=9% on @une 2/ of that year '3%2/1% and on *u ust = of the same year '6%111. The re$ord also sho&s that these funds &ere &ithdra&n and a ain deposited all to ether on the 29th of Cay% 1911% this last deposit amountin to '1/%9A1. These fa$ts stron ly indi$ate that .e la 'e+a had as a matter of fa$t been usin the money in -iolation of the trust imposed in him.

#f the do$trine announ$ed in the majority opinion be follo&ed in $ases hereafter arisin in this jurisdi$tion trust funds &ill be pla$ed in a pre$arious $ondition. The position of the trustee &ill $ease to be one of trust.

# assume that the $ourt in usin the lan ua e &hi$h appears in the latter part of the abo-e )uotation meant to say that there &as no statutory la&