You are on page 1of 3

LOAN | C R E D I T

COMMODATUM rendered its decision in favor of Pajuyo, which was affirmed by


RTC. (MTC and RTC basically ruled that the Kasunduan created
REPUBLIC V. BAGTAS a legal tie akin to that of a landlord and tenant relationship).

FACTS: Bagtas borrowed 3 bulls from the Bureau of Animal CA reversed the RTC decision, stating that the ejectment case is
Industry for 1 year for breeding purposes subject to payment of without legal basis since both Pajuyo and Guevarra illegally
breeding fee of 10% of book value of the bull. Upon expiration, occupied the said lot. CA further stated that both parties are in
Bagtas asked for renewal. The renewal was granted only to one pari delicto; thus, the court will leave them where they are. CA
bull. Bagtas offered to buy the bulls at its book value less ruled that the Kasunduan is not a lease contract, but a
depreciation but refused by the Bureau. Bureau said that Bagtas commodatum because the agreement is not for a price certain.
should either return or buy it at book value. Bagtas returned the
ISSUE: W/N the contractual relationship between Pajuyo and
2 bulls but failed to return the other one because it died during
Guevarra was that of a commodatum
a Huk raid. According to him, their contract is of commodatum,
hence its loss through fortuitous event should be borne by the RULING: NO. In a contract of commodatum, one of the parties
owner. delivers to another something not consumable so that the latter
may use the same for a certain time and return it. An essential
ISSUE: WON their contract is of commodatum.
feature of commodatum is that it is gratuitous. Another feature
RULING: NO. Commodatum is essentially gratuitous. However, of commodatum is that the use of the thing belonging to
in this case, there is a 10% charge. If this is considered another is for a certain period. Thus, the bailor cannot demand
compensation, then the case at bar is a lease. Lessee is liable as the return of the thing loaned until after expiration of the period
possessor in bad faith because the period already lapsed. stipulated, or after accomplishment of the use for which the
commodatum is constituted. If the bailor should have urgent
And even if the contract be commodatum still the appellant is need of the thing, he may demand its return for temporary use.
liable, because the Civil Code provides that a bailee in a contract If the use of the thing is merely tolerated by the bailor, he can
of commodatum is liable for loss of the thing, even if it should demand the return of the thing at will, in which case the
be through a fortuitous event: xxx 2) If he keeps it longer than contractual relation is called a precarium. Under the Civil Code,
the period stipulated; 3) If the thing loaned has been delivered precarium is a kind of commodatum.
with appraisal of its value, unless there is a stipulation
exempting the bailee from responsibility in case of a fortuitous The Kasunduan reveals that the accommodation accorded by
event. Pajuyo to Guevarra was not essentially gratuitous. While the
Kasunduan did not require Guevarra to pay rent, it obligated
REPUBLIC V. CA him to maintain the property in good condition. The imposition
of this obligation makes the Kasunduan a contract different
FACTS: from a commodatum. The effects of the Kasunduan are also
ISSUE: different from that of a commodatum. Case law on ejectment
has treated relationship based on tolerance as one that is akin
RULING: to a landlord-tenant relationship where the withdrawal of
permission would result in the termination of the lease. The
PAJUYO V. CA
tenant’s withholding of the property would then be unlawful.
FACTS: =Pajuyo paid P400 to a certain Pedro Perez for the rights Even assuming that the relationship between Pajuyo and
over a lot, where Pajuyo subsequently built a house. In 1985, Guevarra is one of commodatum, Guevarra as bailee would still
Pajuyo and Guevarra executed a Kasunduan wherein Pajuyo have the duty to turn over possession of the property to Pajuyo,
allowed Guevarra to live in the house for free, on the condition the bailor. The obligation to deliver or to return the thing
that Guevarra would maintain the cleanliness and orderliness of received attaches to contracts for safekeeping, or contracts of
the house. Guevarra promised that he would vacate the commission, administration and commodatum.70 These
premises upon Pajuyo’s demand. contracts certainly involve the obligation to deliver or return the
In 1994, Pajuyo informed Guevarra of his need of the house and thing received.
demanded that the latter vacate the house. Guevarra refused. Guevarra turned his back on the Kasunduan on the sole ground
Pajuyo filed an ejectment case against Guevarra before the that like him, Pajuyo is also a squatter. Guevarra should know
MTC. that there must be honor even between squatters. Guevarra
Guevarra claimed that Pajuyo had no valid title over the lot freely entered into the Kasunduan. Guevarra cannot now
since it is within the area set aside for socialized housing. MTC impugn the Kasunduan after he had benefited from it. The
Kasunduan binds Guevarra.
AUFSOL-SZG|1
LOAN | C R E D I T

The Kasunduan is not void for purposes of determining who by the deposit of the furniture at the defendant's behest. The
between Pajuyo and Guevarra has a right to physical possession latter, as bailee, was not entitled to place the furniture on
of the contested property. The Kasunduan is the undeniable deposit; nor was the plaintiff under a duty to accept the offer to
evidence of Guevarra’s recognition of Pajuyo’s better right of return the furniture, because the defendant wanted to retain
physical possession. Guevarra is clearly a possessor in bad faith. the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps.
The absence of a contract would not yield a different result, as
As to the value of the furniture, we do not believe that the
there would still be an implied promise to vacate.
plaintiff is entitled to the payment thereof by the defendant in
QUINTOS V. BECK case of his inability to return some of the furniture, the
defendant has neither agreed to nor admitted the correctness
FACTS: The plaintiff brought this action to compel the of the said value. Should the defendant fail to deliver some of
defendant to return her certain furniture which she lent him for the furniture, the value thereof should be latter determined by
his use. the trial Court through evidence which the parties may desire
to present.
The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and as such occupied
the latter's house, upon the novation of the contract of lease The costs in both instances should be borne by the defendant.
between the plaintiff and the defendant, the former
gratuitously granted to the latter the use of the furniture, The defendant was the one who breached the contract of
subject to the condition that the defendant would return them commodatum, and without any reason he refused to return and
to the plaintiff upon the latter's demand. deliver all the furniture upon the plaintiff's demand.

The plaintiff sold the property to Maria Lopez and Rosario Lopez In these circumstances, it is just and equitable that he pay the
and on September 14, 1936, these three notified the defendant legal expenses and other judicial costs which the plaintiff would
of the conveyance, giving him sixty days to vacate the premises not have otherwise defrayed.
under one of the clauses of the contract of lease.
DE LOS SANTOS V. JARRA
There after the plaintiff required the defendant to return all the
FACTS:
furniture transferred to him for them in the house where they
were found. ISSUE:
The defendant, through another person, wrote to the plaintiff RULING:
reiterating that she may call for the furniture in the ground floor
of the house. Then defendant wrote another letter to the
plaintiff informing her that he could not give up the three gas
In a contract of commodatum whereby one of the parties
heaters and the four electric lamps because he would use them
thereto delivers to the other a thing that is not perishable, to be
until the 15th of the month when the lease in due to expire.
used for a certain time and afterwards returned, it is the
The plaintiff refused to get the furniture in view of the fact that imperative duty of the bailee, if he should be unable to return
the defendant had declined to make delivery of all of them. the thing itself to the owner, to pay damages to the latter if,
Before vacating the house, the defendant deposited with the through the fault of the bailee, the thing loaned was lost or
Sheriff all the furniture belonging to the plaintiff and they are destroyed, inasmuch as the bailor retains the ownership
now on deposit in the warehouse, in the custody of the said thereof.
sheriff.
MANZANO V. PEREZ
ISSUE: WON the contract between the parties was a contract of
commodatum. FACTS: Emilia Manzano alleged that she is the owner of a
residential house and lot situated at General Luna St. Laguna. In
RULING: YES. The contract entered into between the parties is 1979, Nieves Manzano, sister of the petitioner borrowed the
one of commadatum, because under it the plaintiff gratuitously aforementioned property as collateral for a projected loan.
granted the use of the furniture to the defendant, reserving for Pursuant to their understanding, the petitioner executed two
herself the ownership thereof; by this contract the defendant deeds of conveyance for the sale of the residential lot and the
bound himself to return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the house erected, both for a consideration of P1.00 plus other
latter’s demand. valuables allegedly received by her from Nieves Manzano.
Nieves Manzano, together with her husband, respondent
As the defendant had voluntarily undertaken to return all the
Miguel Perez, Sr. obtained a loan from the Rural Bank of Infanta,
furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latter's demand, the Court
Inc. in the sum of P30,000.00. To secure payment of their
could not legally compel her to bear the expenses occasioned
indebtedness, they executed a Real Estate Mortgage over the
AUFSOL-SZG|2
LOAN | C R E D I T

subject property in favor of the bank. Nieves Manzano died on


18 December 1979 leaving her husband and children as heirs.
These heirs refused to return the subject property to the
petitioner even after the payment of their loan with the Rural
Bank. The petitioner sought the annulment of the deeds of sale
and execution of a deed of transfer or reconveyance of the
subject property in her favor, and award of damages. The Court
of Appeals ruled that it was not convinced by petitioner's claim
that there was a supposed oral agreement of commodatum
over the disputed house and lot. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

RULING:

PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL V. CA

FACTS: Doronilla is in the process of incorporating his business


and to comply with one of the requirements of incorporation,
he caused Vives’ to issue a check which was then deposited in
Doronilla’s savings account. It was agreed that Vives can
withdraw his money in a month’s time. However, what
Doronilla did was to open a current account and instructed the
bank to debit from the savings account and deposit it in his
current account. So when Vives checked the savings account,
the money was gone.

ISSUE: WON the contract is commodatum.

RULING: YES. Although in a commodatum, the object is a non-


consumable thing, there are instances where a consumable
thing may be the object of a commodatum, such as when the
purpose is not for consumption of the object but merely for
exhibition (Art. 1936). Thus, if consumable goods are loaned
only for purposes of exhibition, or when the intention of the
parties is to lend consumable goods and to have the very same
goods returned at the end of the period agreed upon, the loan
is a commodatum and not a mutuum.

AUFSOL-SZG|3

You might also like