THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO vs. GREGORIO from him by the U.S.
military forces, which is
DE LA PEÑA unforeseen event. Although the Civil Code states that “a November 21, 1913 person obliged to give something is also bound to preserve it with the diligence pertaining to a good FACTS: father of a family”, it also provides, following the Plaintiff is the trustee of a charitable bequest principle of the Roman law that “no one shall be liable made for the construction of a leper hospital and that for events which could not be foreseen, or which having father Agustin de la Peña was the duly authorized been foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of representative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. The the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in defendant is the administrator of the estate of Father which the obligation so declares.” De la Peña. By placing the money in the bank and mixing it Father de la Peña had, as trustee, P6, 641 with his personal funds, respondent did not thereby collected by him for the aforementioned charitable assume an obligation different from that under which purposes. He deposited in his personal account P19, he would have lain if such deposit had not been made, 000 in the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank in Iloilo. After nor did he thereby make himself liable to repay the the war of the revolution he was arrested by the money at all hazards. The fact that he placed the trust military authorities as a political prisoner, while fund in the bank in his personal account does not add to detained he made an order on said bank in favor of the his responsibility. Such deposit did not make him a US Army officer under whose charge he then was for debtor who must respond at all hazards. There was no the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrest of law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did and Father De la Peña and the confiscation of the funds in there was no law which changed his responsibility by the bank were the result of the claim of the military reason of the deposit. authorities that he was an insurgent and that the funds thus deposited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken from the bank by the military authorities by virtue of such order, was confiscated and turned over to the Government.
While there is considerable dispute in the case
over the question whether the P6,641 of trust funds was included in the P19,000 deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, a careful examination of the case leads us to the conclusion that said trust funds were a part of the funds deposited and which were removed and confiscated by the military authorities of the United States.
ISSUE:
WON Father de la Peña is liable for the loss of the
funds.
RULING:
NO. He is not liable because there is no
negligent act on the part of Fr. De la Peña. It just so happened that during that time the money was taken