116. Lavadia vs.

Cosme, 72 Phil 196

G.R. No. L-47996 May 9, 1941

ENGRACIA LAVADIA et al, plaintiffs and appellees,

vs. ROSARIO COSME y MENDOZA, defendants and appellants.

Messrs. L. Aurelio Fernandez Palileo Lavadia and in representation of the appellees.

Messrs. Ortega and Ortega in representation of the appellants.

DIAZ, J. :

Subject of dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, was the possession and
custody of certain jewelry that six pious ladies of the town of Pagsanjan, Laguna, named Martina, Matea, Isabel, Paula, Pia and
Engracia all surnamed Lavadia, owned and had sent to the confeccionar in 1880 to decorate with them and adorn the Image of
Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the said town, said jewelry to be retained by them as their property and to be used only
for the said purpose. The plaintiffs and the defendants, except for Engracia Lavadia, are descendants of the other five previous
owners of the vessels in question. Defendant Rosario Cosme Mendoza, a descendant of Paula Lavadia, who then had custody of
the Image, stated that she “would sign over the crown, which constituted part of the same, to the possession of the Catholic
Bishop of Lipa, subject to the use of the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, according to the will of their owners. The descendants
of the three, (Isabel, Matea and Martina Lavadia) and Engracia Lavadia, plaintiffs herein, instituted the case in the Court of
origin, to claim possession and custody of said jewelry. These are none other than those described in paragraph 3 of the
application.

The Court decided the case against the defendant, declaring that the plaintiffs still collectively owned a four sixths share in the
jewelry in question, while defendants had only a right to disposition and custody over two sixths part in the total share; and
that, the parties having decided to entrust such action to Engracia Lavadia, one of the original owners, defendant Rosario
Cosme Mendoza is ordered to make delivery of such share to the aforementioned. Defendant appealed this Decision of the
Court, believing it erred: (1) in finding that appellant herein Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, through her predecessor, in the
possession of the said jewels, held such as a trustee and not as a fiduciary; (2) stating that appellees are owners four sixths of
those, and for that reason argue that they may exercise their right to designate to whom to custody of such shall be
entrusted; (3) by failing to declare the appellant Rosario Cosme Mendoza, being co-owner and trustee of such jewelry, cannot
be deprived of her administration and custody, except for reasons that incapacitate or disqualify her, which would be to act
contrary to the will of the original owners, and to dispose of the said jewels; (4) in refuting that Pia Lavadia and her
descendants up to Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had custody and possession of said jewels, have faithfully performed
their duties; and finally (5) by denying her request for a new hearing.

To get a complete picture of the facts, see below, following the story of the court a quo that rendered the Decision appealed
from, as not discussed by neither the appellants nor the appellees:

The object of the case are the jewels of the image of Our Lady Senñ ora De Guadalupe, from the town of Pagsanjan,
Laguna, consisting of a golden crown encrusted with jewels and gems, a necklace of jewels and gems, and also a belt
embedded with bright jewels, a gold necklace also completely embedded with gems, a gold bracelet encrusted with
jewels and gems, a sterling silver plate with jewels placed on top, and other coin pieces made of gold and silver gilt for
the decoration of the costumes of the image of Our Lady Senñ ora Guadalupe. All these gems are currently lock
deposited in the Bank of the Philippine Islands through defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza.

The crown and jewels described above were made in the 1880s at the expense of six pious ladies who were then
residents of Pagsanjan, Laguna. They were: sisters Pia and Paula Lavadia, sisters Martina and Matea Lavadia, and
sisters Isabel and Engracia Lavadia. These ladies contributed the jewelry that they owned to the crafting of the crown
as described above, also contributing money to answer for the cost in having them crafted. These ladies have all died,
with the exception of the applicant Donñ a Engracia Lavadia Vda. de Fernandez. The other plaintiffs are the legal heirs of
Isabel Lavadia, Matea Lavadia and Martina Lavadia while the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and his co-
defendants are legitimate heirs and descendants of Paula Lavadia.

The crown jewels were ordered to be used by the patron of the Pagasanjan Township, Our Lady of Guadalupe. Upon
completion of its crafting, its owners agreed that these jewels would be left with Pia Lavadia. The jewels were in her
custody until her death in 1882, when her sister Paula Lavadia succeeded her in the custody of the same. Upon the
death of Paula Lavadia, the care, custody and preservation of these jewels was left to her husband Pedro Rosales, and
upon his death, their daughter Paz Rosales succeeded in the custody, preservation and care of the same. On the death
of Paz Rosales, the crown jewels passed to the custody of her husband Baldomero Cosme. After Baldomero Cosme,
these jewels went to Manuel Soriano, who in turn was succeeded in its custody, preservation and management by the
defendant herein Rosario Cosme y Mendoza. Every year since 1880 to date, the jewels in question were used to
decorate the image of Our Lady Senñ ora Guadalupe in Pagsanjan, and for no other purpose as far as those who have
come in possession or have taken care of it are concerned. The defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and his co-
defendants in fact do not claim to be the sole owners of the said jewelry. Indeed, during the intestacy proceedings of
the deceased Baldomero Cosme, Special Action No. 5494 of this District Court, said defendant and his co-defendants
have told the Court that they have never had pretensions to claim domain over such jewelry or any part of the same.
(See Exhibitos by B-2 B-3.)

On February 9, 1938, the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, in her capacity as administrator of the deceased
intestate estate of Baldomero Cosme, notified all persons interested in such jewels that she “wanted to make a formal
 delivery of such jewelry to the Bishop of Lipa next Saturday, February 12, 1938,” advising them so that they might
witness the act of delivery (See Exhibit 4). Indeed, on February 12, 1938, the defendant and her husband made a
formal delivery of the jewels, instituting a document to that effect, hereby submitted as Exhibit E of the plaintiffs and
the two defendants. The applicants, who did not concur with such delivery, manifested a written form which then
designated the applicant Engracia Lavadia as Recamadora, who would have in her care the crown jewels in question
(See Exhibito 3). Having raised the question of who should have custody over the crown jewels in question, and having
made this fact known to the Bishop of Lipa, on June 21, 1938, an action for the granting of a deed relinquishing
custody and administration of these crown jewels was instituted (see Exhibito D of the plaintiffs and defendants 1).

Based on the facts, the court stated that the contract which existed between the original owners of the vessels at issue and the
ones who are now with custody of them, was a deposit, as can be gleamed from the contract, following Articles 1758 of the
Civil Code. Pia Lavadia, followed by Paula Lavadia and her descendants, including appellant Rosario Cosme Mendoza, received
and possessed, one after the other, the aforementioned, only for purposes of custody; as the Court emphasizes in its decision,
none of them used such for their own benefit. If the jewels received were indeed the subject matter of a contract of deposit,
first by Pia and Paula, and then by the descendants of the latter including the appellant Rosario Cosme Mendoza, it is clear that
there is an obligation to their part to return them to their owners as soon as demand is made. The article also features 1766 of
the Civil Code which states:

The depositary is obliged to keep the thing and to return it, when so requested, to the depositor, or his successors in
interest, or a person who has been designated in the contract. His responsibility for the care and the loss of the thing,
shall be governed by the provisions of Title I of this book.

The restitution must be made with all the fruits and accessions of the thing deposited, if any, and cannot be withheld by the
depositary, as said Sanchez Roman, (IV Sanchez Roman, 885), even if the purpose is to obtain compensation for other credits or
to be compensated for expenses incurred for preservation.

The original owners of the vessels in question, agreed to entrust the custody of the same to some of them, expressly reserving
their ownership over their property. It follows that the theory of the appellants that the contract was not that of a deposit after
all, as they claim, cannot be considered as the jewels belong to other persons; even with respect to Rosario Cosme Mendoza, a
descendant of one of the original owners, such claim will still not lie, because even among co-owners of one thing, one of them
can also be the depositary, and when such is the case, he is subject to the same obligations imposed by law on all depository
with respect to the conservation of the thing with the care, diligence and interest of a good parent.

Joint owner . The fact That the depositary is a joint owner of the res does not alter the degree of diligence required of
him.(CJ 18, 570).

Appellees are descendants and legal heirs of Isabel Lavadia, Matea and Martina Lavadia; and Engracia Lavadia, who was
appointed to take over custody of the jewels, is one of the original owners of the same; and the appellants are themselves the
descendants and heirs of Pia and Paula Lavadia. If no record exists anywhere that the six original owners have not contributed
in the making or acquisition of subject jewels other than that so often mentioned in the stated proportion, the most reasonable
conclusion is -- and this supported by law (Art, 393, Civil Code) – each of them is apportioned an equal share in the cost. If this
is true, then we must accept the conclusion of the Court that appellees are owners of four sixths of the jewelry, and that the
appellants entitled to but only the remaining two sixths. Consequently, since majority of the appellees decided to entrust to
Engracia Lavadia, the only survivor among the original owners, the custody and administration of these jewels, to faithfully
comply with the will of their original owners, this decision must respected, because the administration and better enjoyment
of the thing common, according to article 398 of the Civil Code, derives from the mandatory agreements decided by most of the
partakers.

The argument that Rosario Cosme Mendoza and her predecessors have been serving faithfully their duties as trustees, does not
further support the proposition that We should not withdraw the deposit because the deposit agreement is such that allows
the depositor to withdraw from the depositary the thing deposited at any time he so wishes, especially when the latter, as in
the case of Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, has executed an act contrary to established customs, as she sought to transfer or
convey to another the custody and administration of the thing deposited, on her own and without the consent of depositors or
their heirs.

Having found no error in the appealed decision of the court a quo, hereby, confirm it, ordering appellants to pay the costs. So
ordered.

Imperial, Laurel, and Horrilleno Moran, MM., concur.