Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Article 1933 – By the contract of What are the two kinds of contracts
loan, one of the parties delivers of loan?
to another, either something
- Contract of Commodatum
not consumable so that the
Where one of the
latter may use the same for a
parties (bailor) delivers
certain time and return it in
to another (bailee)
which case the contract is called
something not
a commodatum, or money or
consumable so that the
other consumable thing upon
latter may use the same
the condition that the same
for a certain time and
amount of the same kind and
thereafter returns it.
quality shall be paid, in which
Article 1938 – The bailor in When can the bailee make use of the
commodatum need not be the fruits of the thing loaned?
owner of the thing loaned.
- If there is a stipulation to that
Article 1939 – Commodatum is effect, the bailee may make use of
purely personal in character. the fruits of the thing.
Consequently: - The enjoyment of the fruits must
only be incidental to the use of
1. The death of either the bailor the thing. It should not be the
or the bailee extinguishes main cause otherwise the
the contract; contract is not commodatum but
2. The bailee can neither lend a usufruct.
nor lease the object of the
contract to a third person. Section 2 – Obligations of the
However the members of the Bailee
bailee’s household may
make use of the thing Article 1941 – The bailee is obliged
loaned, unless there is a to pay for the ordinary expenses
stipulation to the contrary, for the use and preservation of the
or unless the nature of the thing loaned.
thing forbids such use. Article 1942 – The bailee is liable
Are members of the household of a for the loss of the thing, even if it
bailee considered as third persons? should be through a fortuitous
event:
- No. If thing borrowed is a van,
the members of the household 1. If he devotes the thing to any
may ride on it together with the purpose different from that
bailee or use the same for the which it has been loaned;
purpose for which it was 2. If he keeps it longer than the
borrowed. If it was loaned for period stipulated, or after
fetching children from school it the accomplishment of the
CANNOT be used as a delivery use for which the
truck for construction materials. commodatum has been
- Household members are an constituted;
exception to the general rule that 3. If the thing loaned has been
the use of the object cannot be delivered with appraisal of
ceded to third persons. its value, unless there is
stipulation exempting the
was granted only to one bull. Bagtas the Catholic Church, building, convents,
offered to buy the bulls at its book value high school building, school gymnasium,
less depreciation but the Bureau dormitories, social hall and stonewalls.
refused. The Bureau said that Bagtas
- 1963: Heirs of Juan Valdez and Heirs
should either return or buy it at book
value. Bagtas proved that he already of Egmidio Octaviano claimed that they
returned two of the bulls, and the other have ownership over lots 1, 2 and 3. (2
bull died during a Huk raid, hence, separate civil cases)
obligation already extinguished. He - 1965: The land registration court
claims that the contract is a confirmed the registrable title of Vicar to
commodatum hence, loss through lots 1 , 2, 3 and 4. Upon appeal by the
fortuitous event should be borne by the
private respondents (heirs), the decision
owner.
of the lower court was reversed. Title for
lots 2 and 3 were cancelled.
- VICAR filed with the Supreme Court a
Issue: WON Bagtas is liable for the petition for review on certiorari of the
death of the bull.
decision of the Court of Appeals
dismissing his application for
Held: Yes. Commodatum is essentially registration of Lots 2 and 3.
gratuitous. However, in this case, there - During trial, the Heirs of Octaviano
is a 10% charge. If this is considered presented one (1) witness, who testified
compensation, then the case at bar is a
on the alleged ownership of the land in
lease. Lessee is liable as possessor in bad
faith because the period already question (Lot 3) by their predecessor-in-
lapsed.Even if this is a commodatum, interest, Egmidio Octaviano; his written
Bagtas is still liable because the demand to Vicar for the return of the
fortuitous event happened when he held land to them; and the reasonable rentals
the bull and the period stipulated for the use of the land at P10,000 per
already expired and he is liable because month. On the other hand, Vicar
the thing loaned was delivered with
presented the Register of Deeds for the
appraisal of value and there was no
contrary stipulation regarding his Province of Benguet, Atty. Sison, who
liability in case there is a fortuitous testified that the land in question is not
event. covered by any title in the name of
Egmidio Octaviano or any of the heirs.
Vicar dispensed with the testimony of
Catholic Vicar vs Court of Appeals
Mons. Brasseur when the heirs admitted
Facts: that the witness if called to the witness
- 1962: Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the stand, would testify that Vicar has been
Mountain Province (Vicar), petitioner, in possession of Lot 3, for 75 years
filed with the court an application for continuously and peacefully and has
the registration of title over lots 1, 2, 3 constructed permanent structures
and 4 situated in Poblacion Central, thereon.
Benguet, said lots being used as sites of
Issue: WON Vicar had been in Valdez by purchase and Lot 3 was
possession of lots 2 and 3 merely as acquired also by purchase from Egmidio
bailee borrower in commodatum, a Octaviano by petitioner Vicar because
gratuitous loan for use. there was absolutely no documentary
evidence to support the same and the
Held: YES. alleged purchases were never mentioned
in the application for registration.
Private respondents were able to prove
that their predecessors' house was
borrowed by petitioner Vicar after the QUINTOS VS BECK 69 PHIL 108
church and the convent were destroyed.
They never asked for the return of the Facts: Quintos and Beck entered into a
contract of lease, whereby the latter
house, but when they allowed its free
occupied the former’s house. On Jan 14,
use, they became bailors in 1936, the contract of lease was novated,
commodatum and the petitioner the wherein the QUintos gratuitously
bailee. granted to Beck the use of the furniture,
subject to the condition that Beck should
The bailees' failure to return the subject return the furnitures to Quintos upon
demand. Thereafter, Quintos sold the
matter of commodatum to the bailor did
property to Maria and Rosario Lopez.
not mean adverse possession on the part Beck was notified of the conveyance and
of the borrower. The bailee held in trust given him 60 days to vacate the
the property subject matter of premises. IN addition, Quintos required
commodatum. The adverse claim of Beck to return all the furniture. Beck
petitioner came only in 1951 when it refused to return 3 gas heaters and 4
declared the lots for taxation purposes. electric lamps since he would use them
until the lease was due to expire.
The action of petitioner Vicar by such
Quintos refused to get the furniture
adverse claim could not ripen into title since Beck had declined to return all of
by way of ordinary acquisitive them. Beck deposited all the furniture
prescription because of the absence of belonging to QUintos to the sheriff.
just title.
ISSUE: WON Beck complied with his
The Court of Appeals found that obligation of returning the furnitures to
Quintos when it deposited the furnitures
petitioner Vicar did not meet the
to the sheriff.
requirement of 30 years possession for
acquisitive prescription over Lots 2 and RULING: The contract entered into
3. Neither did it satisfy the requirement between the parties is one
of 10 years possession for ordinary of commadatum, because under it the
acquisitive prescription because of the plaintiff gratuitously granted the use of
absence of just title. The appellate court the furniture to the defendant, reserving
for herself the ownership thereof; by this
did not believe the findings of the trial
contract the defendant bound himself to
court that Lot 2 was acquired from Juan return the furniture to the plaintiff,
10 | C r e d i t T r a n s a c t i o n s , A t t y . B o l i v a r
Dumaual Notes 2018-2019
upon the latters demand (clause 7 of the the Court should leave the present
contract, Exhibit A; articles 1740, situation with respect to possession of
paragraph 1, and 1741 of the Civil Code). the property as it is, and ruling further
The obligation voluntarily assumed by that the contractual relationship of
the defendant to return the furniture Pajuyo and Guevara was that of a
upon the plaintiff's demand, means that commodatum.
he should return all of them to the
plaintiff at the latter's residence or Issue: Is the contractual relationship of
house. The defendant did not comply Pajuyo and Guevara that of a
with this obligation when he merely commodatum?
placed them at the disposal of the
plaintiff, retaining for his benefit the Held: No. The Court of Appeals’ theory
three gas heaters and the four eletric that the Kasunduan is one of
lamps. commodatum is devoid of merit. In a
contract of commodatum, one of the
As the defendant had voluntarily parties delivers to another something
undertaken to return all the furniture to not consumable so that the latter may
the plaintiff, upon the latter's demand, use the same for a certain time and
the Court could not legally compel her to return it. An essential feature of
bear the expenses occasioned by the commodatum is that it is gratuitous.
deposit of the furniture at the Another feature of commodatum is that
defendant's behest. The latter, as bailee, the use of the thing belonging to another
was nt entitled to place the furniture on is for a certain period. Thus, the bailor
deposit; nor was the plaintiff under a cannot demand the return of the thing
duty to accept the offer to return the loaned until after expiration of the
furniture, because the defendant wanted period stipulated, or after
to retain the three gas heaters and the accomplishment of the use for which the
four electric lamps. commodatum is constituted. If the
bailor should have urgent need of the
Pajuyo v. CA thing, he may demand its return for
GR No. 146364 June 3, 2004 temporary use. If the use of the thing is
merely tolerated by the bailor, he can
Facts: Pajuyo entrusted a house to demand the return of the thing at will, in
Guevara for the latter's use provided he which case the contractual relation is
should return the same upon demand called a precarium. Under the Civil
and with the condition that Guevara Code, precarium is a kind of
should be responsible of the commodatum. The Kasunduan reveals
maintenance of the property. Upon that the accommodation accorded by
demand Guevara refused to return the Pajuyo to Guevarra was not essentially
property to Pajuyo. The petitioner then gratuitous. While the Kasunduan did not
filed an ejectment case against Guevara require Guevarra to pay rent, it
with the MTC who ruled in favor of the obligated him to maintain the property
petitioner. On appeal with the CA, the in good condition. The imposition of this
appellate court reversed the judgment of obligation makes the Kasunduan a
the lower court on the ground that both contract different from a commodatum.
parties are illegal settlers on the The effects of the Kasunduan are also
property thus have no legal right so that different from that of a commodatum.
11 | C r e d i t T r a n s a c t i o n s , A t t y . B o l i v a r
Dumaual Notes 2018-2019
12 | C r e d i t T r a n s a c t i o n s , A t t y . B o l i v a r