GR No.
L-47996 May 9, 1941 such reason to exercise the right to designate the person to whom they entrust their
ENGRACIA LAVADIA AND OTHERS, plaintiffs and appeals, vs. ROSARIO COSME DE MENDOZA
AND OTHERS, defendants and appellants.
DIAZ, J .:
The object of litigation between the plaintiffs and the defendants in the Court of First Instance
of Laguna, were the possession and custody of certain jewels that some six pious ladies of the
municipality of Pagsanjan, Laguna, called Martina, Matea, Isabel, Paula, Pia and Engracia
surnamed all Lavadia, they had sent to make 1880, with their own money, to adorn and
decorate with them the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patron of the mentioned
municipality, retaining them for themselves, their ownership not ceasing but only their use to
the referred Image, for the indicated purpose. The plaintiffs and the defendants, with the
exception of Engracia Lavadia, which was one of the six, are descendants of the other five
primitive owners of the jewels in question. Because the defendant Rosario Cosme de
Mendoza who is one of the descendants of Paula Lavadia, who ultimately had custody of
those, wanted to hand over the crown that was part of them, to the Catholic Bishop of Lipa,
to have her in her possession but 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 Lavadia, Matea
Lavadia and Martina Lavadia), Engracia Lavadia who are the plaintiffs, promoted this cause
in the Court of its origin, to claim the possession and custody of all the aforementioned
jewelry. These are none other than those described in paragraph 3 of the lawsuit. to have it in
his possession but 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 Lavadia, Matea Lavadia and
Martina Lavadia), Engracia Lavadia who are the plaintiffs , they promoted this case in the
Court of their origin, to claim the possession and custody of all the aforementioned jewelry.
These are none other than those described in paragraph 3 of the lawsuit. to have it in his
possession but 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 Lavadia, Matea Lavadia and
Martina Lavadia), Engracia Lavadia who are the plaintiffs , they promoted this case in the
Court of their origin, to claim the possession and custody of all the aforementioned jewelry.
These are none other than those described in paragraph 3 of the lawsuit.
The Court decided the case against the defendants, declaring that the plaintiffs owning four
sixths were unimportant of the jewels subject to question, and the defendants, of two sixths
only, those had perfect right to determine who should take care of their custody; and that,
having decided to entrust this is to Engracia Lavadia, one of the primitive owners, ordered
that the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza deliver all of them to said plaintiff. Against
this decision of the Court, the defendants filed an appeal, believing that the Court erred (1) in
declaring that the appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, and his antigresors in the possession
of the aforementioned jewels, acted only as depositories, and not fiduciaries ; (2) by
declaring that the appellants own four-sixths of those, and that they are responsible for said
reason to exercise the right to designate the person to whom they entrust their custody; (3) by
declaring that the appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, being a co-owner and fiduciary of
said jewels, cannot be deprived of her administration and custody, except for reasons that
incapacitate her to do so, which are to execute acts contrary to the willingness of its primitive
owners, and to dispose of the aforementioned jewelry at will; (4) by declaring that Pia
Lavadia and his descendants, until arriving at Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had
custody and possession of the aforementioned jewels, have faithfully performed their duties;
and finally (5) by denying your request for a new hearing. and that they are responsible for
sucustodia; (3) by declaring that the appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, being a co-
owner and fiduciary of said jewels, cannot be deprived of her administration and custody,
except for reasons that incapacitate her to do so, which are to execute acts contrary to the
willingness of its primitive owners, and to dispose of the aforementioned jewelry at will; (4) by
declaring that Pia Lavadia and his descendants, until arriving at Rosario Cosme de Mendoza,
who had had custody and possession of the aforementioned jewels, have faithfully performed
their duties; and finally (5) by denying your request for a new hearing. and that they are
responsible for such reason to exercise the right to designate the person to whom they entrust
their sucustodia; (3) by declaring that the appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, being a co-
owner and fiduciary of said jewels, cannot be deprived of her administration and custody,
except for reasons that incapacitate her to do so, which are to execute acts contrary to the
willingness of its primitive owners, and to dispose of the aforementioned jewelry at will; (4) by
declaring that Pia Lavadia and his descendants, until arriving at Rosario Cosme de Mendoza,
who had had custody and possession of the aforementioned jewels, have faithfully performed
their duties; and finally (5) by denying your request for a new hearing. (3) by declaring that
the appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, being a co-owner and fiduciary of said jewels,
cannot be deprived of her administration and custody, except for reasons that incapacitate
her to do so, which are to execute acts contrary to the willingness of its primitive owners, and
to dispose of the aforementioned jewelry at will; (4) by declaring that Pia Lavadia and his
descendants, until arriving at Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had custody and
possession of the aforementioned jewels, have faithfully performed their duties; and finally (5)
by denying your request for a new hearing. (3) by declaring that the appellant Rosario Cosme
de Mendoza, being a co-owner and fiduciary of said jewels, cannot be deprived of her
administration and custody, except for reasons that incapacitate her to do so, which are to
execute acts contrary to the willingness of its primitive owners, and to dispose of the
aforementioned jewelry at will; (4) by declaring that Pia Lavadia and his descendants, until
arriving at Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had custody and possession of the
aforementioned jewels, have faithfully performed their duties; and finally (5) by denying your
request for a new hearing. which are to execute acts contrary to the will of their primitive
owners, and to dispose of the aforementioned jewelry at will; (4) by declaring that Pia
Lavadia and his descendants, until arriving at Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had
custody and possession of the aforementioned jewels, have faithfully performed their duties;
and finally (5) by denying your request for a new hearing. which are to execute acts contrary
to the will of their primitive owners, and to dispose of the aforementioned jewelry at will; (4) by
declaring that Pia Lavadia and his descendants, until arriving at Rosario Cosme de Mendoza,
who had had custody and possession of the aforementioned jewels, have faithfully performed
their duties; and finally (5) by denying your request for a new
hearing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
To get a full picture of the facts, expongamoslos then following the story of the same makes
the court a quo in its decision appealed because not discuss neither the appellants nor the
appellees:
The object of the cause are the jewels of the image of the Virgin of Our Lady of Guadalupe,
in the municipality of Pagsanjan, Laguna, and consist of a gold crown embedded with
diamonds and diamonds, a diamonds and diamonds choker, a belt also embedded with
diamonds and diamonds, a gold necklace also completely encrusted with diamonds, a gold
bracelet embedded with diamonds and diamonds, a golden silver plate where the above-
mentioned jewels are placed, and other various pieces of gold or of golden silver for the
decoration of the clothing of this image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. All of these jewels are
currently locked up at the Bank of the Philippine Islands because the defendant Rosario
Cosme de Mendoza had deposited them there.
The crown and the jewels described above were made around 1880 at the expense of six
ladies residents of the municipality of Pagsanjan, Laguna. They were the sisters Paula Lavadia
and Pia Lavadia, the sisters Martina Lavadia and Matea Lavadia, and the sisters Isabel
Lavadia and Engracia Lavadia. These ladies contributed jewelry that they had for the
preparation of the crown and with them the jewels described above were made, also
contributing the money with which they were made. All these ladies and they have passed
away, with the exception of the plaintiff Mrs. Engracia Lavadia Vda. Fernandez's The other
plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Isabel Lavadia, Matea Lavadia and Martina Lavadia, while the
defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her co-defendants are legitimate heirs and
descendants of Paula Lavadia.
The crown and jewels were ordered to be made for the use of the owner of the municipality
of Pagasanjan, Ntra.Sra. from Guadalupe. When they had finished making, their owners
agreed that these jewels would stay with the taxpayer Pia Lavadia. She had these jewels in
her custody until her death in 1882, when her sister Paula Lavadia succeeded her in their
custody. On the death of Paula Lavadia, of the care, preservation and custody of said jewels,
Pedro Rosales, and his son, Paz Rosales, died, in turn he succeeded in said custody,
conservation and care. Upon the death of Paz Rosales, the crown and jewels were taken to
the custody of her husband Baldomero Cosme. After Baldomero Cosme, these jewels passed
to Manuel Soriano who, in turn, was succeeded in custody, conservation and administration
by the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza. Every year from 1880 to date, the jewels in
question were used to decorate the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Pagsanjan, and
none of those who have been keeping or guarding these jewels had intended to possess
them as an exclusive owner. The defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her co-
defendants do not claim to own the aforementioned jewelry. Indeed, in the intestate of the
late Baldomero Cosme, special action No. 5494 of this Court of First Instance, said defendant
and his co-defendants have told the Court that they have never had claims to claim the
domain of said jewels or any part of the same. ( the jewels in question were used to decorate
the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Pagsanjan, and none of those who have been
keeping or guarding those jewels had intended to possess them as an exclusive owner. The
defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her co-defendants do not claim to own the
aforementioned jewelry. Indeed, in the intestate of the late Baldomero Cosme, special action
No. 5494 of this Court of First Instance, said defendant and his co-defendants have told the
Court that they have never had claims to claim the domain of said jewels or any part of the
same. ( the jewels in question were used to decorate the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in
Pagsanjan, and none of those who have been keeping or guarding those jewels had
intended to possess them as an exclusive owner. The defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza
and her co-defendants do not claim to own the aforementioned jewelry. Indeed, in the
intestate of the late Baldomero Cosme, special action No. 5494 of this Court of First Instance,
said defendant and his co-defendants have told the Court that they have never had claims
to claim the domain of said jewels or any part of the same. ( The defendant Rosario Cosme
de Mendoza and her co-defendants do not claim to own the aforementioned jewelry.
Indeed, in the intestate of the late Baldomero Cosme, special action No. 5494 of this Court of
First Instance, said defendant and his co-defendants have told the Court that they have
never had claims to claim the domain of said jewels or any part of the same. ( The defendant
Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her co-defendants do not claim to own the aforementioned
jewelry. Indeed, in the intestate of the late Baldomero Cosme, special action No. 5494 of this
Court of First Instance, said defendant and his co-defendants have told the Court that they
have never had claims to claim the domain of said jewels or any part of the same. (See
Exhibits B-2 by B-3.)
On February 9, 1938, the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, in her capacity as
administrator of the intestate of the late Baldomero Cosme, notified all persons interested in
said jewels that she wanted to formally deliver said jewels to Mr. Bishop of Lina on Next
Saturday, that is, on February 12, 1938, informing them to witness the act of delivery ( SeeI
display 4). Indeed, on February 12, 1938, the defendant and her husband made formal
delivery of the jewels, granting the corresponding document for that purpose, a document
that was presented as Exhibit E of the plaintiffs and 2 of the defendants. Not being the
plaintiffs satisfied with this delivery, about six people and the plaintiffs in this case granted a
document, designating the plaintiff Engracia Lavadia as a collector, who would take care of
the crown and the jewelry in question ( SeeI exhibit 3). Having raised the question of who
should have the crown and jewels in question in their custody, and having come to the
knowledge of the Bishop of Lipa, this, in turn, on June 21, 1938, granted a deed waiving
custody and administration of said crown and jewelry ( See Exhibit D of the plaintiffs and 1 of
the defendants).
Based on the facts reported, the Court declared that the contract between the primitive
owners of the jewels in dispute and the first of them that had custody of them, was the
deposit, as this contract is finalized in articles 1758 and following of the Civil Code. Pia Lavadia
first, and then Paula Lavadia and the descendants of the latter being one of them the
appellant Rosario Cosme Mendoza, received and possessed, one after the other, those
referred, only for custody purposes; Well, as the Court emphasizes in its decision, neither those
nor the latter used them for their own benefit. If it was by virtue of a deposit agreement that
the jewels received were first received by Pia and Paula, and then by the descendants of the
latter including the appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, it is clear that there is an obligation
on the part of the latter to return them to their owners as soon as they claim them. This is
stated in article 1766 of the Civil Code that says:
The depositary is obliged to keep the thing and rescind it, when requested, to the depositor,
or to his or her causes, or to the person who had been designated in the contract. Your
responsibility regarding the guard and the loss of the thing, will be governed by the provisions
of the tit. I of this book.
The restitution must be made with all the fruits and accessions of the deposited thing, if it has
them, without being given to the depositary to retain it, as Sanchez Roman comments, (IV
Sanchez Roman, 885), even under the pretext of obtaining compensation of other credits or
to compensate for expenses made for their conservation.
The primitavas owners of the jewels in question, agreed to entrust the custody of them to
some of them, reserving themselves for their property. This goes to show that the appellants'
theory that the contract they had is not a deposit because after all, as they say, the jewels
cannot be considered as belonging to others with respect to Rosario Cosme de Mendoza,
because she descends of one of its first owners, it has no strength, because even among
commoners of one thing, one of them can be a depositary, and when it is, it is subject to the
same obligations imposed by the law on any depositary, 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. (18 CJ, 570).

The appeals are descendants and legal heirs of Isabel Lavadia, Matea Lavadia and Martina
Lavadia; and Engracia Lavadia, whom they appointed to take over the custody of the jewels
subject to question, is one of the primitive owners of them; and the appellants are in turn the
descendants and heirs of Pia Lavadia and PaulaLavadia. Not showing anywhere due to the
six primitive owners did not contribute to the making or acquisition of the jewelry so many
times mentioned, in the same proportion, the most reasonable conclusion is - and this is
sustained by a presumption of law, (Art, 393, Civil Code ) -, that all of them apportioned the
coast of the same paying each one, an equal fee. If this is true, then we must accept the
Court's conclusion that the appellants own four sixths of said jewelry, and that the appellants
are not but only of the two remaining sixth parties. Therefore, having decided most of the
appeals, entrust the custody and administration of these jewels to be able to faithfully comply
with the will of their primitive owners, the appealed Engracia Lavadia, the only survivor of the
same, their decision must be respected, because for the administration and better enjoyment
of the common thing, according to article 398 of the Civil Code, the agreements of the
majority of the participants are mandatory.

The argument that Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and his predecessors have been faithfully
performing their duties as depositaries, does not argue in favor of the proposition that the
deposit should not be withdrawn, because the deposit contract is such that it allows the
depositor to withdraw from the depositary the thing deposited, at any time you would like,
especially when the last one, as in the case of Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, has executed an
act contrary to the order received, entrusting or trying to entrust another, the custody and
administration of the deposited thing, on its own account and without the consent of the
depositors or their heirs. Having found no error in the decision appealed from the Court a
quo, hereby confirm it , condemning the appellants to pay the costs. That's how it is ordered.