Pajuyo vs CA

Facts: Pajuyo entrusted a house to Guevara for the latters use provided he should return thd same upon demand and with the
condition that Guevara should be responsible for the maintenance of the property. Upon demand, Guevara refused to return
the property to Pajuyo. The petitioner then filed an ejectment case against Guevara with the MTC who ruled in favor of the
petitioner. On appeal with the CA, the appellate court reversed the judgement of the lower court on the ground that both
parties are illegal settlers on the property thus have no legal right so that the court should leave the present situation with
respect to possession of the property as it is, and ruling further that the contractual relationship of Pajuyo and Guevara was
that of a commodatum.
Issue: WON the contractual relationship of Pajuyo and Guevara is that of a commodatum.
Held: No. The CA's theory that the Kasunduan is one of commodatum is devoid of merit. In a contract of commodatum, one of
the parties delivers to another something not consumable so that the latter may use for a certain time and return it. An
essential feature of a 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 th return of the thing loaned until the expiration of
the period stipulated, or after accomplishmentof 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 Guevara was not essentially gratuitous. While the Kasunduan did not require Guevara to pay the 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 tenants withholding of the property would then be unlawful.

Republic vs Bagtas
Facts: Bagtas borrowed 3 bulls from the Bureau of Animal Industry for 1 year for breeding purposes subject to payment of
breeding fee of 10% of book value of the bull. Upon expiration, Bagtas asked for renewal. The renewal was granted only to 1
bull. Bagtas offered to buy the bulls at its book value less depreciation but the Bureau refused. The Bureau said that Bagtas
should either return it or buy it at book value. Bagtas proved that he already returned 2 of the bulls, and the other bull died a
Hulk raid. Hence, the obligation is already extinguished. He claims that the contract is a commodatum hence, loss through
fortuitous event should be borne by the owner.
Issue: WON Bagtas is liable for the death of the bull.
Held: Yes. Commodatum is essentially gratuitous. However, in this case, there is a 10% charge. If this is considered
compensation, then the case at bar is a lease. Lessee is liable as possessor in bad faith because the period has already lapsed.
Even if this is a commodatum, Bagtas is still liable because the fortuitous event happened when he held the bull and the period
stipulated already expired and he is liable because the thing loaned was delivered with appraisal of value and there was no
contrary stipulation regarding his liability in case there is a fortuitous event.