Republic of the Philippines vs.

Jose Bagtas, Felicidad Bagtas, administratrix of the intestate estate left by Jose Bagtas
Facts: On May 8, 1948, Jose Bagtas borrowed from the Bureau of Animal Industry 3 bulls for 1 year for breeding purposes, subject to breeding fee for 10% of the book value of the bulls. Upon the expiration of the contract, Bagtas asked for a renewal for another year. The renewal granted was only for 1 bull. Bagtas offered to buy the bulls at book value less depreciation, but the Bureau told him that he should either return the bulls or pay for their book value. Bagtas failed to pay the book value, and so the Republic commenced an action with the CFI Manila to order the return of the bulls of the payment of book value. Felicidad Bagtas, the surviving spouse and administratrix of the decedent’s estate, stated that the 2 bulls have already been returned in 1952, and that the remaining one died of gunshot during a Huk raid. As regards the two bulls, is was proven that they were returned and thus, there is no more obligation on the part of the appellant. As to the bull not returned, Felicidad contends that the obligation is extinguished since the contract is that of a commodatum and that the loss through fortuitous event should be borne by the owner. Issue: Whether, depending on the nature of the contract, the respondent is liable for the death of the bull Held: 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, because article 1942 of the Civil Code provides that a bailee in a contract of commodatum . . . is liable for loss of the things, even if it should be through a fortuitous event: (2) If he keeps it longer than the period stipulated . . .

with a corresponding 40% commission to her if the goods are sold. No. otherwise the money would be returned to Rosales. if in the negative. when lent and delivered to the deceased husband of the appellant the bulls had each an appraised book value. unless there is a stipulation exempting the bailee from responsibility in case of a fortuitous event. 114398 October 24.  Money was misappropriated. Bagtas having been instituted in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Q-200). Rosales would give the money needed to buy the cigarettes while Liwanag and Tabligan would act as her agents. when money or property have been received by a partner for a specific purpose and he later misappropriated it. Furthermore. Facts:  Liwanag asked Isidora Rosales to join her and Thelma Tagbilaran in the business of buying and selling cigarettes. the administratrix appointed by the court. the money judgment rendered in favor of the appellee cannot be enforced by means of a writ of execution but must be presented to the probate court for payment by the appellant. ownership over the same is transferred.R. WON the transaction is a simple loan Held: 1.  Rosales gave several cash advances amounting to 633. But the appellant kept and used the bull until November 1953 when during a Huk raid it was killed by stray bullets. Being the owner. 2. No. 2. such partner is guilty of estafa. . Issue: 1. No.(3) If the thing loaned has been delivered with appraisal of its value. The loan of one bull was renewed for another period of one year to end on 8 May 1950. 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.650. Carmen Liwanag v. Under their agreement. CA and People G. Even assuming that a contract of partnership was indeed entered into by and between the parties. J. WON the parties entered into a partnership agreement. Special proceedings for the administration and settlement of the estate of the deceased Jose V. the borrower can dispose of it for whatever purpose he may deem proper. Rosales files a complaint of estafa against them. In a contract of loan once the money is received by the debtor. 1997 Romero.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful