QUINTOS VS BECK 69 PHIL 108

Facts:
Quintos and Beck entered into a contract of lease, whereby the latter occupied t
he former s house. On Jan 14, 19?!, the contract of lease was no"ated, wherein the
Q#intos $ratuitously $ranted to Beck the use of the furniture, sub%ect tothe co
ndition that Beck should return the furnitures to Quintos upon demand. &hereaft
er, Quintos sold the property to 'aria and (osario )ope*. Beck was noti+ed of th
e con"eyance and $i"en him !? days to "acate the premises. -? addition, Quintos
re/uired Beck to return all the furniture. Beck refused to return ? $as heaters
and 4 electric lamps since he would use them until the lease was due to e0pire.
Quintos refused to $et the furniture since Beck had declined to return all of th
em. Beck deposited all the furniture belon$in$ to Q#intos to the sheri?.
ISSUE: WON
Beck complied with his obli$ation of returnin$ the furnitures to Quintos when it
deposited the furnitures to the sheri?.
RULING:
&he contract entered into between the parties is one of
commadatum
, because under it the plainti? $ratuitously $ranted the use of the furniture to
the defendant, reser"in$ for herself the ownership thereof2 by this contract th
e defendant bound himself to return the furniture to the plainti?, upon the latt
ers demand 3clause ? of the contract, 50hibit 62 articles 1?4?, para$raph 1, and
1?41 of the 7i"il 7ode8. &he obli$ation "oluntarily assumed by the defendant to
return the furniture upon the plainti??s demand, means that he should return al
l of them to theplainti? at the latter?s residence or house. &he defendant did n
ot comply with this obli$ation when he merely placed them at the disposal of the
plainti?, retainin$ for his bene+t the three $as heaters and the four eletric l
amps.6s the defendant had "oluntarily undertaken to return all the furniture to
the plainti?, upon the latter?s demand, the 7ourt could not le$ally compel her t
o bear the e0penses occasioned by the deposit of the furniture at the defendant?
s behest. &he latter, as bailee, was nt entitled to place the furniture on depo
sit2 nor was the plainti? under a duty to accept the o?er to return the furnitur
e, because the defendant wanted to retain the three $as heaters and the four ele
ctric lamps.