(1)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND
APPELLEE, VS. JOSE V. BAGTAS, DEFENDANT.
FELICIDAD M. BAGTAS, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE
INTESTATE ESTATE LEFT BY THE LATE JOSE V.
BAGTAS, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT.
G. R. No. L-17474, October 25, 1962
FACTS:
On May 8, 1948, Defendant borrowed from the
Bureau of Animal Industry three bulls: a Red Sindhi with
a book value of P 1,176.46, a Bhagnari of P1,320.56 and
a Sahiniwal of P744.46 for breeding purposes for a
period of one year subject to a breeding fee of 10% of
the book value of the bulls. Upon expiration of the of the
contract, defendant asked for the renewal of contract to
which the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources approved but only for one bull and requested
the return of the other.
Sometime, in November 1953, more than three
years after the stipulated period in the renewed contract,
the subject bull died from a gunshot wound attained
during a Huk raid.
Defendant contends that the contract was
commodatum, therefore, the Republic as the owner of
bull should suffer the loss.
ISSUE:
Is the contract a commodatum?
RULING:
No. A contract of commodatum is essentially
gratuitous. If the breeding fee be considered
compensation, then the contract would be a lease.
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 paragraph 2, Article 1942 of the Civil Code
provides that a bailee in a contract of commodatum — is
liable for loss of the thing, even if it should be through a
fortuitous event if he keeps it longer than the period
stipulated.
(2)
PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (NOW
FIRST INTERNATIONAL BANK), PETITIONER, VS.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND FRANKLIN VIVES,
RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 115324, February 19, 2003
FACTS:
Private respondent Vives accommodated the
request of his friend Sanchez to help her friend Doronilla,
in incorporating his business, by depositing a certain
amount of money in the bank account of Sterela for
purposes of its incorporation. She assured private
respondent that he could withdraw his money from said
account after thirty days. They had with them an
authorization letter from Doronilla authorizing Sanchez
and her companions, “in coordination with Atienza,
bank’s assistant manager, to open an account for Sterela
Marketing Services in the amount of P200,000.00. In
opening the account, the authorized signatories were
Inocencia Vives and/or Angeles Sanchez.
Subsequently, Vives found out that only
P90,000.00 remained in said account. Upon series of
demand, Doronilla issued postdated check in favor of
Vives but was dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
Private respondent instituted an action for recovery of
sum of money and the court adjudicated in favor of
private respondent. On appeal, defendants (herein
petitioner) argued that the transaction between Doronilla
and Vives was one simple loan and not commodatum.
ISSUE:
Is the transaction between private respondent
and petitioners not a commodatum considering that the
object of the transaction is money, a consumable thing?
RULING:
The transaction between private respondent
and Doronilla was a commodatum and not a mutuum.
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.
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 days. Private respondent merely
accommodated Doronilla by lending his money without
consideration, as a favor to his good friend Sanchez. It
was however clear to the parties to the transaction that
the money would not be removed from Sterela’s savings
account and would be returned to private respondent
after thirty days.
(3)
COLITO T. PAJUYO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF
APPEALS AND EDDIE GUEVARRA, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 146364, June 03, 2004
FACTS:
Sometime in 1979, petitioner Pajuyo paid to a
certain Perez the rights over a 250-square meter lot in
Barrio Payatas. Pajuyo then constructed a house made
of light materials on the lot. Pajuyo and his family lived in
the house for six years. In December 1985, Pajuyo and
private respondent Guevarra executed a Kasunduan,
that Pajuyo, as owner of the house, allowed Guevarra to
live in the house for free provided Guevarra would
maintain the cleanliness and orderliness of the house.
Guevarra promised that he would voluntarily vacate the
premises on Pajuyo’s demand.
After nine years, Pajuyo informed Guevarra of
his need of the house and demanded that Guevarra
vacate the house. Guevarra refused, hence ejectment
case against Guevarra was instituted.
ISSUE:
Is the Kasunduan a contract of Commodatum?
RULING:
No. 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.
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. Case law on
ejectment has treated relationship based on tolerance as
one that is akin to a landlord-tenant relationship where
the withdrawal of permission would result in the
termination of the lease. The tenant’s withholding of the
property would then be unlawful.
(4)
ALEJANDRA MINA ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND
APPELLANTS, VS. RUPERTA PASCUAL ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.
G.R. No. 8321, October 14, 1913
FACTS:
Francisco Fontanilla and Andres Fontanilla
were brothers. Francisco acquired a lot in the center of
the town of Laoag. Andres, with the consent of his
brother Francisco, erected a warehouse on a part of the
said lot.
Francisco was substituted by Alejandra Mina
and Andres by the children of Ruperta Pascual as their
respective heir as parties in the case.
Pascual, the guardian of the minors, sold at
public auction all the land and all the rights, title, interest,
and ownership in the said property to Cu Joco. Plaintiffs
commenced the present action for the purpose of having
the sale of the said lot declared null and void and of no
force and effect since the minors represented by Ruperta
Pascual never were the owners of the said lot, nor were
they ever considered to be such.
ISSUE:
Was the nature of the contract between
Francisco and Andres a commodatum?
RULING:
Yes. That it is a fact explicitly admitted in the
agreement, that neither Andres nor his successors paid
any consideration or price whatever for the use of the lot
occupied by the said building; whence it is, perhaps, that
both parties have denominated that use a commodatum.
(5)
MARGARITA QUINTOS AND ANGEL A. ANSALDO,
PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. BECK,
DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
G.R. No. 46240, November 03, 1939
FACTS:
Beck was a tenant of the plaintiff’s house. The
latter gratuitously granted to the former the use of the
furniture described in their agreement subject to the
condition that Beck would return them to the plaintiff upon
demand. The plaintiff sold the property to other person
and demanded from Beck the return of the furniture and
to vacate the property in 60 days. Beck informed the
plaintiff that it could not give up some of the furniture for
he would use them until the expiration of the agreement.
Thereafter, instead of returning to the plaintiff, Beck
deposited with the Sheriff all the furniture belonging to
the former.
ISSUE:
Is the contract a commodatum?
RULING:
Yes. 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 Beck bound himself to return the furniture to
the plaintiff, upon the latter’s demand. The obligation
voluntarily assumed by Beck 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.