-
7/27/2019 Chapter I Commodatum
1/13
Chapter I: Commodatum
G.R. No. L-17474 October 25, 1962
R!"#LIC O$ %& !&ILI!!IN',plaintiff-appellee,vs.
(O' ). #*G%*',defendant,$LICI+*+ . #*G%*', *dm/tratr0 o the
Ite/tate /tate et b3 the ate (o/e ).
#ata/,petitioner-appellant.
D. T. Reyes, Liaison and Associates for
petitioner-appellant.Office of the Solicitor General for
plaintiff-appellee.
!*+ILL*, J.:
The Court of Appeals certified this case to this Court because
only questions of law are raised.
On 8 May 1!8 "ose #. $a%tas borrowed fro& the 'epublic of
the (hilippines throu%h the $ureau of Ani&al )ndustry three
bulls* a 'ed+indhi with a boo value of (1,1.!, a $ha%nari, of
(1,/0.2 and a +ahiniwal, of (!!.!, for a period of one year
fro& 8 May1!8 to May 1! for breedin% purposes sub3ect to a
%overn&ent char%e of breedin% fee of 14 of the boo value of the
bulls5pon the e6piration on May 1! of the contract, the borrower
ased for a renewal for another period of one year. 7owever,
the+ecretary of A%riculture and atural 'esources approved a renewal
thereof of only one bull for another year fro& 8 May 1! to May
12 and requested the return of the other two. On 02 March 12 "ose
#. $a%tas wrote to the 9irector of Ani&al )ndustry thathe would
pay the value of the three bulls. On 1 October 12 he reiterated his
desire to buy the& at a value with a deduction ofyearly
depreciation to be approved by the Auditor :eneral. On 1 October 12
the 9irector of Ani&al )ndustry advised hi& that the
boo value of the three bulls could not be reduced and that they
either be returned or their boo value paid not later than /1
October12. "ose #. $a%tas failed to pay the boo value of the three
bulls or to return the&. +o, on 0 9ece&ber 12 in the Court
of ;irst)nstance of Manila the 'epublic of the (hilippines
co&&enced an action a%ainst hi& prayin% that he be
ordered to return the threebulls loaned to hi& or to pay their
boo value in the total su& of (/,0!1.!2 and the unpaid breedin%
fee in the su& of (1.0, bothwith interests, and costs< and
that other 3ust and equitable relief be %ranted in =civil o.
10818>.
On 2 "uly 121 "ose #. $a%tas, throu%h counsel avarro, 'osete and
Manalo, answered that because of the bad peace and ordersituation
in Ca%ayan #alley, particularly in the barrio of $a%%ao, and of the
pendin% appeal he had taen to the +ecretary ofA%riculture and
atural 'esources and the (resident of the (hilippines fro& the
refusal by the 9irector of Ani&al )ndustry to deductfro&
the boo value of the bulls correspondin% yearly depreciation of 84
fro& the date of acquisition, to which depreciation theAuditor
:eneral did not ob3ect, he could not return the ani&als nor pay
their value and prayed for the dis&issal of the
co&plaint.
After hearin%, on / "uly 12 the trial court render 3ud%&ent
?
. . . sentencin% the latter =defendant> to pay the su& of
(/,02. the total value of the three bulls plus the breedin% fees
in
the a&ount of (0.1 with interest on both su&s of =at>
the le%al rate fro& the filin% of this co&plaint and
costs.
On October 128 the plaintiff &oved e6 parte for a writ of
e6ecution which the court %ranted on 18 October and issued on
11ove&ber 128. On 0 9ece&ber 128 %ranted an e6-parte
&otion filed by the plaintiff on ove&ber 128 for the
appoint&ent of aspecial sheriff to serve the writ outside
Manila. Of this order appointin% a special sheriff, on 9ece&ber
128, ;elicidad M. $a%tasthe survivin% spouse of the defendant "ose
$a%tas who died on 0/ October 121 and as ad&inistratri6 of his
estate, was notified. On "anuary 12 she file a &otion alle%in%
that on 0 "une 120 the two bull +indhi and $ha%nari were returned
to the $ureau Ani&aof )ndustry and that so&eti&e in
ove&ber 128 the third bull, the +ahiniwal, died fro&
%unshot wound inflicted durin% a 7u raid on7acienda ;elicidad
)ntal, and prayin% that the writ of e6ecution be quashed and that a
writ of preli&inary in3unction be issued. On /1"anuary 12 the
plaintiff ob3ected to her &otion. On ;ebruary 12 she filed a
reply thereto. On the sa&e day, ;ebruary, theCourt denied her
&otion. 7ence, this appeal certified by the Court of Appeals to
this Court as stated at the be%innin% of this opinion.
)t is true that on 0 "une 120 "ose M. $a%tas, "r., son of the
appellant by the late defendant, returned the +indhi and $ha%nari
bulls to'o&an 'e&orin, +uperintendent of the #$ +tation,
$ureau of Ani&al )ndustry, $ayo&bon%, ueva #i@caya, as
evidenced by a&e&orandu& receipt si%ned by the latter
=6hibit 0>. That is why in its ob3ection of /1 "anuary 12 to the
appellantBs &otion to
quash the writ of e6ecution the appellee prays that another writ
of e6ecution in the su& of (82.2/ be issued a%ainst the estate
ofdefendant deceased "ose #. $a%tas. +he cannot be held liable for
the two bulls which already had been returned to and received bythe
appellee.
The appellant contends that the +ahiniwal bull was accidentally
illed durin% a raid by the 7u in ove&ber 12/ upon
thesurroundin% barrios of 7acienda ;elicidad )ntal, $a%%ao,
Ca%ayan, where the ani&al was ept, and that as such death was
due toforce majeureshe is relieved fro& the duty of returnin%
the bull or payin% its value to the appellee. The contention is
without &eritThe loan by the appellee to the late defendant
"ose #. $a%tas of the three bulls for breedin% purposes for a
period of one year fro& 8May 1!8 to May 1!, later on renewed
for another year as re%ards one bull, was sub3ect to the
pay&ent by the borrower ofbreedin% fee of 14 of the boo value
of the bulls. The appellant contends that the contract was
commodatumand that, for thareason, as the appellee retained
ownership or title to the bull it should suffer its loss due to
force majeure. A contract ocommodatumis essentially %ratuitous.1)f
the breedin% fee be considered a co&pensation, then the
contract would be a lease of thebull. 5nder article 11 of the Civil
Code the lessee would be sub3ect to the responsibilities of a
possessor in bad faith, because she
-
7/27/2019 Chapter I Commodatum
2/13
had continued possession of the bull after the e6piry of the
contract. And even if the contract be commodatum, still the
appellant isliable, because article 1!0 of the Civil Code provides
that a bailee in a contract of commodatum?
. . . is liable for loss of the thin%s, even if it should be
throu%h a fortuitous event*
=0> )f he eeps it lon%er than the period stipulated . . .
=/> )f the thin% loaned has been delivered with appraisal of
its value, unless there is a stipulation e6e&ptin% the bailee
fro&responsibility in case of a fortuitous event days, orwithin
such ti&e as &ay be %ranted. . . .
and after the defendantBs death on 0/ October 121 his counsel
failed to co&ply with section 1 of 'ule / which provides that
?
Dhenever a party to a pendin% case dies . . . it shall be the
duty of his attorney to infor& the court pro&ptly of such
death . . and to %ive the na&e and residence of the e6ecutory
ad&inistrator, %uardian, or other le%al representative of the
deceased. . . .
The notice by the probate court and its publication in the Vo de
!anila that ;elicidad M. $a%tas had been issue letters
ofad&inistration of the estate of the late "ose $a%tas and that
all persons havin% clai&s for &onopoly a%ainst the deceased
"ose #$a%tas, arisin% fro& contract e6press or i&plied,
whether the sa&e be due, not due, or contin%ent, for funeral
e6penses ande6penses of the last sicness of the said decedent, and
3ud%&ent for &onopoly a%ainst hi&, to file said
clai&s with the Cler of thisCourt at the City 7all $ld%.,
7i%hway 2!, Eue@on City, within si6 => &onths fro& the
date of the first publication of this order, servin%a copy thereof
upon the afore&entioned ;elicidad M. $a%tas, the appointed
ad&inistratri6 of the estate of the said deceased, is nota
notice to the court and the appellee who were to be notified of the
defendantBs death in accordance with the above-quoted ruleand there
was no reason for such failure to notify, because the attorney who
appeared for the defendant was the sa&e who
represented the ad&inistratri6 in the special proceedin%s
instituted for the ad&inistration and settle&ent of his
estate. The appelleeor its attorney or representative could not be
e6pected to now of the death of the defendant or of the
ad&inistration proceedin%s ofhis estate instituted in another
court that if the attorney for the deceased defendant did not
notify the plaintiff or its attorney of suchdeath as required by
the rule.
As the appellant already had returned the two bulls to the
appellee, the estate of the late defendant is only liable for the
su& o(82./, the value of the bull which has not been returned
to the appellee, because it was illed while in the custody of
thead&inistratri6 of his estate. This is the a&ount prayed
for by the appellee in its ob3ection on /1 "anuary 12 to the
&otion filed on "anuary 12 by the appellant for the quashin% of
the writ of e6ecution.
+pecial proceedin%s for the ad&inistration and
settle&ent of the estate of the deceased "ose #. $a%tas havin%
been instituted in theCourt of ;irst )nstance of 'i@al =E-0>,
the &oney 3ud%&ent rendered in favor of the appellee cannot
be enforced by &eans of a writof e6ecution but &ust be
presented to the probate court for pay&ent by the appellant,
the ad&inistratri6 appointed by the court.
ACCO'9):FG, the writ of e6ecution appealed fro& is set
aside, without pronounce&ent as to costs.
"en#on, $.%., "autista An#elo, La&rador, $oncepcion, Reyes,
%.".L., 'aredes, Dion, Re#ala and !a(alintal, %%., concur"arrera,
%.,concurs in the result.
-
7/27/2019 Chapter I Commodatum
3/13
G.R. No. 294-95 'eptember 21, 19
C*%&OLIC )IC*R *!O'%OLIC O$ %& O"N%*IN !RO)INC,
petitioner,vs.CO"R% O$ *!!*L', &IR' O$ GI+IO OC%*)I*NO *N+ ("*N
)*L+, respondents.
G*NC*8CO, J.:
The principal issue in this case is whether or not a decision of
the Court of Appeals pro&ul%ated a lon% ti&e a%o can
properly be
considered res judicataby respondent Court of Appeals in the
present two cases between petitioner and two private
respondents.
(etitioner questions as alle%edly erroneous the 9ecision dated
Au%ust /1, 18 of the inth 9ivision of 'espondent Court of Appealsin
CA-:.'. o. 21!8 HCivil Case o. / =!1>I and CA-:.'. o. 21! HCivil
Case o. /22 =!0>I, both for 'ecovery of (ossessionwhich
affir&ed the 9ecision of the 7onorable icode&o T. ;errer,
"ud%e of the 'e%ional Trial Court of $a%uio and $en%uet in CiviCase
o. / =!1> and Civil Case o. /22 =!0>, with the dispositive
portion as follows*
D7';O', "ud%&ent is hereby rendered orderin% the defendant,
Catholic #icar Apostolic of the Mountain(rovince to return and
surrender Fot 0 of (lan (su-1!/2 to the plaintiffs. 7eirs of "uan
#alde@, and Fot / of thesa&e (lan to the other set of
plaintiffs, the 7eirs of %&idio Octaviano =Feonardo #alde@, et
al.>. ;or lac orinsufficiency of evidence, the plaintiffsB
clai& or da&a%es is hereby denied. +aid defendant is
ordered to pay costs=p. /, 'ollo>
'espondent Court of Appeals, in affir&in% the trial courtBs
decision, sustained the trial courtBs conclusions that the 9ecision
of theCourt of Appeals, dated May !,1 in CA-:.'. o. /88/-', in the
two cases affir&ed by the +upre&e Court, touched on the
ownership of lots 0 and / in question< that the two lots were
possessed by the predecessors-in-interest of private respondents
undeclai& of ownership in %ood faith fro& 1 to 121< that
petitioner had been in possession of the sa&e lots as bailee in
co&&odatu&up to 121, when petitioner repudiated the
trust and when it applied for re%istration in 10< that
petitioner had 3ust been inpossession as owner for eleven years,
hence there is no possibility of acquisitive prescription which
requires 1 years possession with3ust title and / years of
possession without< that the principle of res judicataon these
findin%s by the Court of Appeals will bar areopenin% of these
questions of facts< and that those facts &ay no lon%er be
altered.
(etitionerBs &otion for reconsideation of the respondent
appellate courtBs 9ecision in the two afore&entioned cases =CA
:.'. o. C#-2!18 and 2!1> was denied.
The facts and bac%round of these cases as narrated by the trail
court are as follows ?
... The docu&ents and records presented reveal that the
whole controversy started when thedefendant Catholic #icar
Apostolic of the Mountain (rovince =#)CA' for brevity> filed
with theCourt of ;irst )nstance of $a%uio $en%uet on +epte&ber
2, 10 an application for re%istration of
title over Fots 1, 0, /, and ! in (su-1!/2, situated at
(oblacion Central, Fa Trinidad, $en%uetdoceted as F'C -1, said Fots
bein% the sites of the Catholic Church buildin%, convents,
hi%hschool buildin%, school %y&nasiu&, school
dor&itories, social hall, stonewalls, etc. On March 001/ the
7eirs of "uan #alde@ and the 7eirs of %&idio Octaviano filed
their AnswerJOpposition onFots os. 0 and /, respectively, assertin%
ownership and title thereto. After trial on the &erits, theland
re%istration court pro&ul%ated its 9ecision, dated ove&ber
1, 12, confir&in% there%istrable title of #)CA' to Fots 1, 0,
/, and !.
The 7eirs of "uan #alde@ =plaintiffs in the herein Civil Case o.
/22> and the 7eirs of %&idioOctaviano =plaintiffs in the
herein Civil Case o. /> appealed the decision of the
landre%istration court to the then Court of Appeals, doceted as
CA-:.'. o. /88/-'. The Court ofAppeals rendered its decision, dated
May , 1, reversin% the decision of the land re%istrationcourt and
dis&issin% the #)CA'Bs application as to Fots 0 and /, the lots
clai&ed by the two setsof oppositors in the land re%istration
case =and two sets of plaintiffs in the two cases now at bar>the
first lot bein% presently occupied by the convent and the second by
the wo&enBs dor&itoryand the sisterBs convent.
On May , 1, the 7eirs of Octaviano filed a &otion for
reconsideration prayin% the Court oAppeals to order the
re%istration of Fot / in the na&es of the 7eirs of %&idio
Octaviano, and onMay 1, 1, the 7eirs of "uan #alde@ and (acita
#alde@ filed their &otion for reconsiderationprayin% that both
Fots 0 and / be ordered re%istered in the na&es of the 7eirs of
"uan #alde@ and(acita #alde@. On Au%ust 10,1, the Court of Appeals
denied the &otion for reconsiderationfiled by the 7eirs of "uan
#alde@ on the %round that there was no sufficient &erit to
3ustifyreconsideration one way or the other ..., and liewise denied
that of the 7eirs of %&idioOctaviano.
Thereupon, the #)CA' filed with the +upre&e Court a petition
for review on certiorari of thedecision of the Court of Appeals
dis&issin% his =its> application for re%istration of Fots 0
and /,
-
7/27/2019 Chapter I Commodatum
4/13
doceted as :.'. o. F-!8/0, entitled BCatholic #icar Apostolic of
the Mountain (rovince vs. Courtof Appeals and 7eirs of %&idio
Octaviano.B
;ro& the denial by the Court of Appeals of their &otion
for reconsideration the 7eirs of "uan#alde@ and (acita #alde@, on
+epte&ber 8, 1, filed with the +upre&e Court a petition
forreview, doceted as :.'. o. F-!80, entitled, )eirs of %uan Valde
and 'acita Valde *s. $ourt ofAppeals, #icar, 7eirs of %&idio
Octaviano and Annable O. #alde@.
On "anuary 1/, 18, the +upre&e Court denied in a &inute
resolution both petitions =of #)CA' onthe one hand and the 7eirs of
"uan #alde@ and (acita #alde@ on the other> for lac of
&erit. 5ponthe finality of both +upre&e Court resolutions
in :.'. o. F-!8/0 and :.'. o. F- !80, the7eirs of Octaviano filed
with the then Court of ;irst )nstance of $a%uio, $ranch )), a
Motion ;or6ecution of "ud%&ent prayin% that the 7eirs of
Octaviano be placed in possession of Fot /. TheCourt, presided over
by 7on. +alvador ". #alde@, on 9ece&ber , 18, denied the
&otion on the%round that the Court of Appeals decision in
CA-:.'. o. /88 did not %rant the 7eirs oOctaviano any
affir&ative relief.
On ;ebruary , 1, the 7eirs of Octaviano filed with the Court of
Appeals a petitioner focertiorari and &anda&us, doceted as
CA-:.'. o. 88-', entitled )eirs of +#midio Octa*iano*s. )on.
Sal*ador %. Valde, %r. and Vicar. )n its decision dated May 1, 1,
the Court of Appealsdis&issed the petition.
)t was at that sta%e that the instant cases were filed. The
7eirs of %&idio Octaviano filed CiviCase o. / =!1> on "uly
0!, 1, for recovery of possession of Fot /< and the 7eirs of
"uan#alde@ filed Civil Case o. /22 =!0> on +epte&ber 0!, 1,
liewise for recovery of possession
of Fot 0 =9ecision, pp. 1-01, Ori%. 'ec.>.
)n Civil Case o. / =!1> trial was held. The plaintiffs 7eirs
of %&idio Octaviano presented one =1> witness;ructuoso
#alde@, who testified on the alle%ed ownership of the land in
question =Fot /> by their predecessor-in-interest, %&idio
Octaviano =6h. C >< his written de&and =6h. $?$-! > to
defendant #icar for the return of theland to the&< and the
reasonable rentals for the use of the land at (1,. per &onth.
On the other handdefendant #icar presented the 'e%ister of 9eeds
for the (rovince of $en%uet, Atty. icanor +ison, who testified
thatthe land in question is not covered by any title in the
na&e of %&idio Octaviano or any of the plaintiffs =6h.
8>The defendant dispensed with the testi&ony of
Mons.Dillia& $rasseur when the plaintiffs ad&itted that the
witnessif called to the witness stand, would testify that defendant
#icar has been in possession of Fot /, for seventy-five=2> years
continuously and peacefully and has constructed per&anent
structures thereon.
)n Civil Case o. /22, the parties ad&ittin% that the
&aterial facts are not in dispute, sub&itted the case on
thesole issue of whether or not the decisions of the Court of
Appeals and the +upre&e Court touchin% on the ownershipof Fot
0, which in effect declared the plaintiffs the owners of the land
constitute res judicata.
)n these two cases , the plaintiffs arque that the defendant
#icar is barred fro& settin% up the defense of ownershipandJor
lon% and continuous possession of the two lots in question since
this is barred by prior 3ud%&ent of the Courtof Appeals in
CA-:.'. o. /88/-' under the principle of res judicata. (laintiffs
contend that the question opossession and ownership have already
been deter&ined by the Court of Appeals =6h. C, 9ecision,
CA-:.'. o/88/-'> and affir&ed by the +upre&e Court =6h.
1, Minute 'esolution of the +upre&e Court>. On his
partdefendant #icar &aintains that the principle of res
judicatawould not prevent the& fro& liti%atin% the issues
oflon% possession and ownership because the dispositive portion of
the prior 3ud%&ent in CA-:.'. o. /88/-'&erely dis&issed
their application for re%istration and titlin% of lots 0 and /.
9efendant #icar contends that only thedispositive portion of the
decision, and not its body, is the controllin% pronounce&ent of
the Court of Appeals. 2
The alle%ed errors co&&itted by respondent Court of
Appeals accordin% to petitioner are as follows*
1. ''O' ) A((FG): FAD O; T7 CA+ A9 R+S %D$ATA
