THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JAROvs.GREGORIO DE LA PEA 26 Phil
144 G.R. No. L6!1" Nov. 2!# 1!1"
FACTS $
The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitable request made for
the construction ofa leper hospital and that father Agustin de la
Pea was the duly authorizedrepresentative of the plaintiff to
receive the legacy. The defendant is theadministrator of the estate
of Father Dela Pea.n the year !"#" the boo$sFather De la Pea% as
trustee% showed that he had on hand as such trusteethe sum of
P&%&'!% collected by him for the charitable purposes
aforesaid. nthe same year he deposited in his personal account
P!#%((( in the )ong$ong
and *hanghai +an$ at loilo. *hortly thereafter and during the
war of therevolution% Father De la Pea was arrested by the military
authorities as apolitical prisoner% and while thus detained made an
order on said ban$ in favorof the ,nited *tates Army officer under
whose charge he then was for thesum thus deposited in said ban$.
The arrest of Father De la Pea and theconfiscation of the funds in
the ban$ were the result of the claim of the militaryauthorities
that he was an insurgent and that the funds thus deposited hadbeen
collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was ta$en
fromthe ban$ by the military authorities by virtue of such
order%was confiscatedand turned over to the -overnment. hile there
is considerable dispute in thecase over the question whether the
P&%&'! of trust funds was included in theP!#%((( deposited
as aforesaid% nevertheless% a careful e/amination of thecase leads
us to the conclusion that said trust funds were a part of the
fundsdeposited and which were removed and confiscated by the
military authoritiesof the ,nited *tates.
ISS%E $
hether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the
money under histrust0
R%LINGS $
The court% therefore% finds and declares that the money which is
the sub1ectmatter of this action was deposited by Father De la Pea
in the )ong$ongand *hanghai +an$ing 2orporation of loilo3 that said
money was forciblyta$en from the ban$ by the armed forces of the
,nited *tates during the warof the insurrection3 and that said
Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Father De la Pea4s
liability is determined by those portions of the 2ivil2ode which
relate to obligations.5+oo$ '% Title !.6Although the 2ivil 2ode
states that 7a person obliged togive something is also bound to
preserve itwith the diligence pertaining to a good father of a
family7 5art.!(#'6% it also
7/26/2019 Bishop of Jaro vs Dela Pena 26 Phil 144
2/2
provides% following the principle of the 8oman law% ma1or casus
est% cuihumana infirm it as resistere non potest% that 7no one
shall be liable for eventswhich could not be foreseen% or which
having been foreseen were inevitable%with the e/ception of the
cases e/pressly mentioned in the law or those inwhich the
obligation so declares.7 5Art. !!(9.6+y placing the money in
the
ban$ and mi/ing it with his personal funds De la Pea did not
thereby assumean obligation different from that under which he
would have lain if suchdeposit had not been made% nor did he
thereby ma$e himself liable to repaythe money at all hazards. f the
had been forcibly ta$en from his poc$et orfrom his house by the
military forces of one of the combatants during a stateof war% it
is clear that under the provisions of the 2ivil 2ode he would
havebeen e/empt from responsibility. The fact that he placed the
trust fund in theban$ in his personal account does not add to his
responsibility. *uch depositdid not ma$e him a debtor who must
respond at all hazards.
