CATHOLIC VICAR APOSTOLIC OF THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF EGMIDIO OCTAVIANO AND JUAN VALDEZ G.R. No. 80294-95 September 21, 1988 Facts: Petitioner Vicar admitted that Lots 2 and 3 were owned by Valdez and Octaviano. Both Valdez and Octaviano had Free Patent Application for those lots since 1906. The predecessors of private respondents, not petitioner Vicar, were in possession of the questioned lots since 1906. Buildings standing in Lots 2 and 3 were only constructed after liberation in 1945. Petitioner Vicar only declared Lots 2 and 3 for taxation purposes in 1951. The improvements oil Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 were paid for by the Bishop but said Bishop was appointed only in 1947, the church was constructed only in 1951 and the new convent only 2 years before the trial in 1963. When petitioner Vicar was notified of the oppositor's claims, the parish priest offered to buy the lot from Fructuoso Valdez. Lots 2 and 3 were surveyed by request of petitioner Vicar only in 1962. The Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano filed Civil Case on July 24, 1979, for recovery of possession of Lot 3; and the Heirs of Juan Valdez filed on September 24, 1979 for recovery of possession of Lot 2.

Issue: Whether the PETITIONER HAD BEEN IN POSSESSION OF LOTS 2 AND 3 is BAILEE BORROWER IN COMMODATUM, A GRATUITOUS LOAN FOR USE?

Ruling: The petition is bereft of merit. 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. The SC affirmed the findings of Court of Appeals that the predecessors-in-interest and private respondents were possessors under claim of ownership in good faith from 1906; that petitioner Vicar was only a bailee in commodatum; and that the adverse claim and repudiation of trust came only in 1951.

CHEE KIONG YAM, et al, vs. HON. NABDAR J. MALIK G.R. No. L-50550-52 October 31, 1979 Facts: Three separate criminal cases charging estafa through misappropriation were filed in the sala of Municipal Judge Nabdar J. Malik in Jolo, Sulu. First case was against Rosalinda M. Amin for misappropriating P50,000.00 but the complaint states on its face said amount received "as a loan." Second case was against Tan Chu Kao filed by Yam Chee Kiong et. al,for the amount of P30,000.00. but the complaint states on its face that the P30,000.00 was "a simple loan." Third was against Augusto Sajor as charged by petitioners Chee Kiong Yam et al, for misappropriation P20,000.00. Unlike the complaints in the other two cases, but does not state that the amount was received as loan, however, later was supported with a sworn statement that the amount was a "loan." of the petition.). Respondent judge is said to have acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion because the facts recited in the complaints did not constitute the crime of estafa, and assuming they did, they were not within the jurisdiction of the respondent judge. Issue: Whether the three criminal complaints do not constitute estafa through misappropriation.

Ruling: Petition granted. In order that a person can be convicted under the abovequoted provision, it must be proven that he has the obligation to deliver or return the same money, goods or personal property that he received. Petitioners had no such obligation to return the same money, i.e., the bills or coins, which they received from private respondents. This is so because as clearly stated in criminal complaints, the related civil complaints and the supporting sworn statements, the sums of money that petitioners received were loans. It can be readily noted from the above-quoted provisions that in simple loan (mutuum), as contrasted to commodatum, the borrower acquires ownership of the money, goods or personal property borrowed. Being the owner, the borrower can dispose of the thing borrowed (Article 248, Civil Code) and his act will not be considered misappropriation thereof.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE V. BAGTAS, defendant FELICIDAD M. BAGTAS, Administratrix, petitioner-appellant. G.R. No. L-17474 October 25, 1962 Facts: On 8 May 1948 Jose V. Bagtas On May 8, 1948, Jose V. Bagtas borrowed from the Bureau of Animal Industry three bulls: a Red Sindhi, a Bhagnari, and a Sahiniwal, each attached with book values, for a period of one year from May 8, 1948 to May 7, 1949 for breeding purposes subject to a government charge of breeding fee of 10% of the book value of the bulls. Upon the expiration on 7 May 1949 of the contract, the borrower asked for a renewal for another period of one year but approved renewal was only for one bull for another year and requested the return of the other two. On March 25 and October 17 of 1950 Jose Bagtas wrote to the Director of Animal Industry that he would pay the value of the three bulls at a value with a deduction of yearly depreciation. On 19 October 1950 the Director of Animal Industry advised him that the book value of the three bulls could not be reduced and that they either be returned or their book value paid not later than October 31,1950. Jose V. Bagtas failed to pay or to return them. So, on December 30, 1950 commenced an action against him praying that he be ordered to return the three bulls loaned to him or to pay their book value in the total sum of P3,241.45 and the unpaid breeding fee in the sum of P199.62, both with interests, and costs; and that other just and equitable relief be granted in (civil No. 12818). Jose Bagtas died on October 23, 1951. Hence, Felicidad M. Bagtas, the surviving spouse represented his estate and allege that on June 26, 1952 the two bull Sindhi and Bhagnari were returned to the Bureau Animal of Industry and that sometime in November 1958 the third bull, the Sahiniwal, died from gunshot wound inflicted during a Huk raid on Hacienda Felicidad Intal, and praying that the writ of execution be quashed. Issue: Whether the death of Sahiniwal bull was due to force majeure and relieved the petitionerappellant from liability?

Ruling: The contention is without merit. The loan by the appellee to the late defendant Jose V. Bagtas of the three bulls for breeding purposes for a period of one year, later on renewed for another year as regards one bull, was subject to the payment by the borrower of breeding fee of 10% of the book value of the bulls. The appellant contends that the contract was commodatum and that, for that reason, as the appellee retained ownership or title to the bull it should suffer its loss due to force majeure. A contract of commodatum is essentially gratuitous. If the breeding fee be considered a compensation, then the contract would be a lease of the bull. Under article 1671 of the Civil Code the lessee would be subject to the responsibilities of a possessor in bad faith, because she had continued possession of the bull after the expiry of the contract. And even if the contract be commodatum, still the appellant is liable under article 1942.