8/10/2019 ct digest

1/3

REPUBLIC VS BAGTAS [G.R. No. L-17474 October 25, 1962] PADILLA, J.

FACTS:

Jose Bagtas borrowed from the Bureau of Animal Industry three bulls for a period of

one year for breeding purposes subject to a government charge of breeding fee of

10% of the book value of the books.Upon the expiration of the contract, Bagtas asked for a renewal for another one year,

however, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved only the

renewal for one bull and other two bulls be returned.

Bagtas then wrote a letter to the Director of Animal Industry that he would pay the

value of the three bulls with a deduction of yearly depreciation. The Director

advised him that the value cannot be depreciated and asked Bagtas to either return

the bulls or pay their book value.

Bagtas neither paid nor returned the bulls. The Republic then commenced an action

against Bagtas ordering him to return the bulls or pay their book value.

After hearing, the trial Court ruled in favor of the Republic, as such, the Republic

moved ex parte for a writ of execution which the court granted.Felicidad Bagtas, the surviving spouse and administrator of Bagtas estate, returned

the two bulls and filed a motion to quash the writ of execution since one bull cannot

be returned for it was killed by gunshot during a Huk raid. The Court denied her

motion hence, this appeal certified by the Court of Appeals because only questions

of law are raised.

ISSUE: WON the contract was commodatum;thus, Bagtas be held liable for its loss

due to force majeure.

RULING:

A contract of commodatum is essentially gratuitous. Supreme Court held that Bagtaswas liable for the loss of the bull even though it was caused by a fortuitous event.

If the contract was one of lease, then the 10% breeding charge is compensation

(rent) for the use of the bull and Bagtas, as lessee, is subject to the responsibilities of

a possessor. He is also in bad faith because he continued to possess the bull even

though the term of the contract has already expired.

If the contract was one of commodatum, he is still liable because: (1) he kept the bull

longer than the period stipulated; and (2) the thing loaned has been delivered with

appraisal of its value (10%). No stipulation that in case of loss of the bull due to

fortuitous event the late husband of the appellant would be exempt from liability.

The original period of the loan was from 8 May 1948 to 7 May 1949. The loan of one

bull was renewed for another period of one year to end on 8 May 1950. But theappellant kept and used the bull until November 1953 when during a Huk raid it

was killed by stray bullets.

Furthermore, when lent and delivered to the deceased husband of the appellant the

bulls had each an appraised book value, to with: the Sindhi, at P1,176.46, the

Bhagnari at P1,320.56 and the Sahiniwal at P744.46. It was not stipulated that in

case of loss of the bull due to fortuitous event the late husband of the appellant

would be exempt from liability

8/10/2019 ct digest

2/3

---

Date: September 31, 1988

Facts:

- 1962: Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province (Vicar), petitioner, filedwith the court an application for the registration of title over lots 1, 2, 3 and 4

situated in Poblacion Central, Benguet, said lots being used as sites of the Catholic

Church, building, convents, high school building, school gymnasium, dormitories,

social hall and stonewalls.

- 1963: Heirs of Juan Valdez and Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano claimed that they have

ownership over lots 1, 2 and 3. (2 separate civil cases)

- 1965: The land registration court confirmed the registrable title of Vicar to lots 1 ,

2, 3 and 4. Upon appeal by the private respondents (heirs), the decision of the lower

court was reversed. Title for lots 2 and 3 were cancelled.

- VICAR filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari of the

decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing his application for registration of Lots 2and 3.

- During trial, the Heirs of Octaviano presented one (1) witness, who testified on the

alleged ownership of the land in question (Lot 3) by their predecessor-in-interest,

Egmidio Octaviano; his written demand to Vicar for the return of the land to them;

and the reasonable rentals for the use of the land at P10,000 per month. On the

other hand, Vicar presented the Register of Deeds for the Province of Benguet, Atty.

Sison, who testified that the land in question is not covered by any title in the name

of Egmidio Octaviano or any of the heirs. Vicar dispensed with the testimony of

Mons. Brasseur when the heirs admitted that the witness if called to the witness

stand, would testify that Vicar has been in possession of Lot 3, for 75 years

continuously and peacefully and has constructed permanent structures thereon.

Issue: WON Vicar had been in possession of lots 2 and 3 merely as bailee borrower

in commodatum, a gratuitous loan for use.

Held: YES.

Private respondents were able to prove that their predecessors' house was

borrowed by petitioner Vicar after the church and the convent were destroyed.

They never asked for the return of the house, but when they allowed its free use,

they became bailors in commodatum and the petitioner the bailee.

The bailees' failure to return the subject matter of commodatum to the bailor did

not mean adverse possession on the part of the borrower. The bailee held in trust

the property subject matter of commodatum. The adverse claim of petitioner came

only in 1951 when it declared the lots for taxation purposes. The action of petitioner

Vicar by such adverse claim could not ripen into title by way of ordinary acquisitive

prescription because of the absence of just title.

8/10/2019 ct digest

3/3

The Court of Appeals found that petitioner Vicar did not meet the requirement of 30

years possession for acquisitive prescription over Lots 2 and 3. Neither did it satisfy

the requirement of 10 years possession for ordinary acquisitive prescription

because of the absence of just title. The appellate court did not believe the findings

of the trial court that Lot 2 was acquired from Juan Valdez by purchase and Lot 3

was acquired also by purchase from Egmidio Octaviano by petitioner Vicar becausethere was absolutely no documentary evidence to support the same and the alleged

purchases were never mentioned in the application for registration.