Loan

Commodatum
1 Republic vs Bagtas
FACTS: May 8, 1948: Jose V. Bagtas borrowed from the Republic of the Philippines
through the Bureau of Animal Industry three bulls: a Red Sindhi with a book
value of P1,176.46, a Bhagnari, of P1,320.56 and a Sahiniwal, of P744.46, for a
period of 1 year for breeding purposes subject to a breeding fee of 10% of the
book value of the bulls
May 7, 1949: Jose requested for a renewal for another year for the three bulls
but only one bull was approved while the others are to be returned
March 25, 1950: He wrote to the Director of Animal Industry that he would pay
the value of the 3 bulls
October 17, 1950: he reiterated his desire to buy them at a value with a
deduction of yearly depreciation to be approved by the Auditor General.
October 19, 1950: Director of Animal Industry advised him that either the 3 bulls
are to be returned or their book value without deductions should be paid not
later than October 31, 1950 which he was not able to do
December 20, 1950: An action at the CFI was commenced against Jose praying
that he be ordered to return the 3 bulls or to pay their book value of P3,241.45
and the unpaid breeding fee of P199.62, both with interests, and costs
July 5, 1951: Jose V. Bagtas, through counsel Navarro, Rosete and Manalo,
answered that because of the bad peace and order situation in Cagayan Valley,
particularly in the barrio of Baggao, and of the pending appeal he had taken to
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the President of the
Philippines, he could not return the animals nor pay their value and prayed for
the dismissal of the complaint.
RTC: granted the action
December 1958: granted an ex-parte motion for the appointment of a special
sheriff to serve the writ outside Manila
December 6, 1958: Felicidad M. Bagtas, the surviving spouse of Jose who died on
October 23, 1951 and administratrix of his estate, was notified

January 7, 1959: she file a motion that the 2 bulls where returned by his son on
June 26, 1952 evidenced by recipt and the 3rd bull died from gunshot wound
inflicted during a Huk raid and prayed that the writ of execution be quashed and
that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued.
ISSUE: W/N the contract is commodatum and NOT a lease and the estate should
be liable for the loss due to force majeure due to delay.
HELD: YES. writ of execution appealed from is set aside, without pronouncement
as to costs
If contract was commodatum then Bureau of Animal Industry retained ownership
or title to the bull it should suffer its loss due to force majeure. A contract of
commodatum is essentially gratuitous. If the breeding fee be considered a
compensation, then the contract would be a lease of the bull. 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 if he keeps it longer than the period stipulated. The estate of
the late defendant is only liable for the sum of P859.63, the value of the bull
which has not been returned because it was killed while in the custody of the
administratrix of his estate
Special proceedings for the administration and settlement of the estate of the
deceased Jose V. Bagtas having been instituted in the CFI, the money judgment
rendered in favor of the appellee cannot be enforced by means of a writ of
execution but must be presented to the probate court for payment by the
appellant, the administratrix appointed by the court.
2 Republic vs CA
3 Pajuyo vs CA
Facts: Pajuyo entrusted a house to Guevara for the latter's use provided he
should return the same upon demand and with the condition that Guevara
should be responsible of 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 judgment 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.

furniture since Beck had declined to return all of them. Beck deposited all the
furniture belonging to QUintos to the sheriff.

Issue: Is the contractual relationship of Pajuyo and Guevara that of a

commodatum?

ISSUE: WON Beck complied with his obligation of returning the furnitures to
Quintos when it deposited the furnitures to the sheriff.

Held: No. The Court of Appeals 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
the same for a certain time and return it. 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. Thus, the bailor cannot demand the
return of the thing loaned until after expiration of the period stipulated, or after
accomplishment of 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 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
tenants withholding of the property would then be unlawful.

RULING: 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 the
defendant bound himself to return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latters
demand (clause 7 of the contract, Exhibit A; articles 1740, paragraph 1, and
1741 of the Civil Code). The obligation voluntarily assumed by the defendant 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. The defendant did not
comply with this obligation when he merely placed them at the disposal of the
plaintiff, retaining for his benefit the three gas heaters and the four eletric
lamps.

4 Quintos vs Beck
Facts: Quintos and Beck entered into a contract of lease, whereby the latter
occupied the formers house. On Jan 14, 1936, the contract of lease was
novated, wherein the QUintos gratuitously granted to Beck the use of the
furniture, subject to the condition that Beck should return the furnitures to
Quintos upon demand. Thereafter, Quintos sold the property to Maria and
Rosario Lopez. Beck was notified of the conveyance and given him 60 days to
vacate the premises. IN addition, Quintos required Beck to return all the
furniture. Beck refused to return 3 gas heaters and 4 electric lamps since he
would use them until the lease was due to expire. Quintos refused to get the

As the defendant had voluntarily undertaken to return all the furniture to the
plaintiff, upon the latter's demand, the Court could not legally compel her to
bear the expenses occasioned by the deposit of the furniture at the defendant's
behest. The latter, as bailee, was nt 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 gas heaters and the four
electric lamps.
5 Delos Santos vs Jarra
Facts: The Plaintiff Felix delos Santos filed this suit against Agustina Jarra. Jarra
was the administratix of the estate of Jimenea. Plaintiff alleged that he owned 10
1st class carabaos which he lent to his father-in-law Jimenea to be used in the
animal-power mill without compensation. This was done on the condition of their
return after the work at the latters mill is terminated. When delos Santos
demanded the return of the animals Jimenea refused, hence this suit.
Issue: W/N the contracts is one of a commodatum
Ruling: YES. The carabaos were given on commodatum as these were delivered
to be used by defendant. Upon failure of defendant to return the cattle upon
demand, he is under the obligation to indemnify the plaintiff by paying him their
value. Since the 6 carabaos were not the property of the deceased or of any of

his descendants, it is the duty of the administratrix of the estate to either return
them or indemnify the owner thereof of their value.
6 Manzano vs Perez
7 Producers Bank of the Phils vs CA