C-01

Calibo v. Court of Appeals (2001)

1962

Principal purpose of Deposit SAFEKEEPING and NOT as SECURITY to an obligation

Respondent Abellas (A) son Mike (M) rented for residential purposes the house of Petitioner Calibo (C). A left a tractor in his sons garage for safekeeping C: M had not paid rentals, electric and water bills M reassured C that the tractor would stand as GUARANTEE FOR ITS PAYMENT A wanted to take possession of his tractor but C said that the M had left the tractor with him as security for the payment of Ms obligation to him. A issued postdated checks but Petitioner will only accept check if A executes Promissory Note to cover payment for unpaid electric and water bills. A instituted an action for replevin claiming ownership of the tractor and seeking to recover possession thereof from petitioner. Likewise, he asserts that the tractor was left with him, in the CONCEPT OF AN INNKEEPER, ON DEPOSIT and that he may validly hold on thereto until Mike Abella pays his obligations. TC and CA M could not have validly pledged the tractor because he was not the owner. NO DEPOSIT

WON there was a valid deposit

NO In a contract of deposit, a person receives an object belonging to another with the obligation of safely keeping it and of returning the same. Petitioner himself stated that he received the tractor not to safely keep it but as a form of security for the payment of Mike Abellas obligations. There is NO DEPOSIT WHERE THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE FOR RECEIVING THE OBJECT IS NOT SAFEKEEPING. Consequently, petitioner had no right to refuse delivery of the tractor to its lawful owner. On the other hand, private respondent, as owner, had every right to seek to repossess the tractor including the institution of the instant action for replevin. Additionally, there is NO VALID PLEDGE FOR MIKE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE THING; and there is NO VALID AGENCY EITHER FOR MIKE WAS ACTING NOT ONLY WITHOUT APPELLEE'S AUTHORITY BUT WITHOUT THE LATTER'S KNOWLEDGE AS WELL.