REPUBLIC VS BAGTAS G.R. No.

L-17474 October 25, 1962

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.

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS: * Trial court: 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.

INTERVENING FACT: 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.

ISSUES & RULING: 1. WON the contract was commodatum; WON Bagtas should be held
liable for its loss due to force majeure.

NO, the contract is not commodatum. YES, he is liable for the loss.
A contract of commodatum is essentially gratuitous. Supreme Court held that Bagtas was 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 the appellant 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.
Carolyn M. Garcia, Petitioner,

vs.

Rica Marie S. Thio, Respondent.

16 March 2007 1st Division G.R. No. 154878

Ponente: Justice Corona

Facts:

In February and June 1995, respondent received from petitioner crossed checks in the
amount of US$100,000.00 and P500,000.00 with monthly interest at 3% and 4%, respectively.
These checks were payable to the order of one Marilou Santiago.

When respondent failed to pay the amounts, petitioner filed a complaint with the RTC
which rendered judgment in her favor.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the RTC was reversed. The CA ruled
that there was no contract of loan between the parties as the record shows that petitioner failed to
substantiate her claim that respondent indeed borrowed money from her because the crossed
checks issued by her was payable to the order of Marilou Santiago.

Issue:
Whether or not there is a contract of loan

Decision:

Petition granted.

A loan is a real contract, not consensual, and as such is perfected only upon the delivery
of the object of the contract. This is evident in Art. 1934 of the Civil Code which provides:

An accepted promise to deliver something by way of commodatum or simple loan is

binding upon the parties, but the commodatum or simple loan itself shall not be perfected until
the delivery of the object of the contract.

Upon delivery of the object of the contract of loan (in this case the money received by the
debtor when the checks were encashed) the debtor acquires ownership of such money or loan
proceeds and is bound to pay the creditor an equal amount.

Although respondent did not physically receive the proceeds of the checks, these
instruments were placed in her control and possession under an arrangement whereby she
actually re-lent the amounts to Santiago.
Republic vs CA 146 scra 15

FACTS: The Heirs of Domingo Baloy, (private respondents), applied for a registration of title for
their land. Their claim is based on their possessory information title acquired by Domingo Baloy
through the Spanish Mortgage Law, coupled with their continuous, adverse and public
possession of the land in question. The Director of Lands opposed the registration alleging that
such land became public land through the operation of Act 627 of the Philippine Commission.
On Nov 26, 1902, pursuant to the executive order of the President of U.S., the area was declared
within the US Naval Reservation.

The CFI denied respondents' application for registration. CA, reversed the decision. Petitioners
herein filed their Motion for Reconsideration, said MR was denied, hence this petition for review
on certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents' rights by virtue of their possessory information title
was lost by prescription.

RULING: No. A communication which contains an official statement of the position of the
Republic of the Philippines with regard to the status of the land in question recognizes the fact
that Domingo Baloy and/or his heirs have been in continuous possession of said land since 1894
as attested by an "Informacion Possessoria" Title, which was granted by the Spanish
Government. Hence, the disputed property is private land and this possession was interrupted
only by the occupation of the land by the U.S. Navy in 1945. The heirs of the late Domingo P.
Baloy, are now in actual possession, and this has been so since the abandonment by the U.S.
Navy.

The occupancy of the U.S. Navy was not in the concept of owner. It holds of the character of a
commodatum. It cannot affect the title of Domingo Baloy. One's ownership of a thing may be
lost by prescription by reason of another's possession if such possession be under claim of
ownership, not where the possession is only intended to be temporary, as in the case of the U.S.
Navy's occupation of the land concerned, in which case the owner is not divested of his title,
although it cannot be exercised in the meantime.