Deposit
An extrajudicial deposit is either voluntary or necessary
Article 1962. A deposit is constituted from the moment a person
receives a thing belonging to another, with the obligation of safely
keeping it and of returning the same. If the safekeeping of the thing
delivered is not the principal purpose of the contract, there is no
deposit but some other contract.
(1) Effect where safekeeping only an accessory obligation. — The
principal purpose of the contract of deposit is the safekeeping of
the thing delivered so that if safekeeping is only an accessory or
secondary obligation of the recipient of the thing, deposit is not
constituted but some other contract like lease, commodatum, or
agency.
Deposit distinguished from mutuum.
(1) In deposit, the principal purpose is safekeeping or mere
custody, while in mutuum, the consumption of the subject matter;
(2) In deposit, the depositor can demand the return of the subject
matter at will, while in mutuum, the lender must wait until the
expiration of the period granted to the debtor; and
(3) In deposit, both movable and immovable property may be the
object, while in mutuum, only money and any other fungible thing.
Deposit distinguished from commodatum.
(1) In deposit, the principal purpose is safekeeping, while in
commodatum, the transfer of the use;
(2) Deposit may be gratuitous, while commodatum is essentially
and always gratuitous; and
(3) In (extrajudicial) deposit, only movable (corporeal) things may
be the object, while in commodatum, both movable and
immovable property may be the object.
Article 1963. An agreement to constitute a deposit is binding, but
the deposit itself is not perfected until the delivery of the thing.
A deposit is a real contract and is, therefore, perfected only upon
delivery of the object of the contract. Where there has been no
delivery, there is merely an agreement to deposit which, however,
is binding and enforceable upon the parties. Hence, a contract of
future deposit is consensual.
KINDS
Article 1964. A deposit may be constituted judicially or
extrajudicially
A deposit may be created by virtue of a court order or by law and
not by the will of the parties
(1) judicial or one which takes place when an attachment or
seizure of property in litigation is ordered
(2) extrajudicial (Art. 1967.) which may be;
(a) voluntary or one wherein the delivery is made by the
will of the depositor or by two or more persons each of
whom believes himself entitled to the thing deposited
(b) necessary or one made in compliance with a legal
obligation, or on the occasion of any calamity, or by
travellers in hotels and inns (Arts. 1996-2004.) or by
travellers with common carriers.
Article 1967.
Deposit is generally voluntary. It becomes necessary in the three
cases mentioned in Articles 1996 and 1998, i.e., when made in
compliance with a legal obligation, on the occasion of any calamity,
or by travellers in hotels and inns
Article 1996. A deposit is necessary:
(1) When it is made in compliance with a legal
obligation;
(2) When it takes place on the occasion of any calamity,
such as fire, storm, flood, pillage, shipwreck, or other
similar events.
Article 1998. The deposit of effects made by travellers in hotels or
inns shall also be regarded as necessary. The keepers of hotels or
inns shall be responsible for them as depositaries, provided that
notice was given to them, or to their employees, of the effects
brought by the guests and that, on the part of the latter, they take
the precautions which said hotel-keepers or their substitutes
advised relative to the care and vigilance of their effects. /
Article 1965. A deposit is a gratuitous contract, except when there
is an /agreement to the contrary,/ or/ unless the depositary is
engaged in the business of storing goods./
(1) Where there is contrary stipulation. — The fi rst exception is
recognized in the general rule in contracts that the parties may
establish any stipulation they may deem convenient provided it is
not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public
policy
(2) Where depositary engaged in business of storing goods. — The
second exception is based on the fact that the depositary is
engaged in the business of storing goods (as in the case of a
warehouseman) for compensation and not out of pure generosity.
(3) Where property saved from destruction without knowledge of
the owner. — In involuntary deposit, where property is saved from
destruction during a calamity by another person without the
knowledge of the owner, the latter is bound to pay the former just
compensation
ART. 1966. Only movable things may be the object of a deposit.
(1) Only movable or personal property may be the object of
extrajudicial deposit, whether voluntary (Art. 1968.) or necessary.
(Art. 1995.) Article 1966 proceeds from the object of a deposit
which is safekeeping of a thing. The possibility that the thing may
disappear or may be lost or stolen is not present in real property.
Thus, the delivery of the keys of a house cannot be considered as a
deposit of the same, and entrusting its care and custody is,
juridically, an agency. (11 Manresa 671.)
(2) Judicial deposit (Arts. 2005-2006.), however, may cover
movable as well as immovable property its purpose being to
protect the rights of parties to a suit.
VOLUNTARY DEPOSIT
Article 1968. A voluntary deposit is that wherein the delivery is
made by the will of the depositor. A deposit may also be made by
two or more persons each of whom believes himself entitled to the
thing deposited with a third person, who shall deliver it in a proper
case to the one to whom it belongs.
Ex: x and y pinag-aawayan pamana ni a. dineposit yung pamana
kay b tapos court.
A voluntary deposit is one wherein the delivery is made by the will
of the depositor. Ordinarily, there are only two persons involved.
Sometimes, however, the depositary may be a third person.
Voluntary and necessary deposits distinguished.
The chief difference between a voluntary deposit and a necessary
deposit is that in the former, the depositor has complete freedom
in choosing the depositary, whereas in the latter, there is lack of
free choice in the depositor
Depositor need not be owner of thing
Where there are several depositors.
Two or more persons each claiming to be entitled to a thing may
deposit the same with a third person. In such case, the third
person assumes the obligation to deliver to the one to whom it
belongs. The action to compel the depositors to settle their confl
icting claims among themselves would be in the nature of an
interpleader. (Sec. 1, Rule 62, Rules of Court.1 ) Here, one of the
depositors is not the owner.
ART. 1969. A contract of deposit may be entered into orally or in
writing. FORM OF DEPO
The above article follows the general rule that contracts shall be
obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into
provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present.
(Art. 1356.) Thus, except for the delivery of the thing, there are no
formalities required for the existence of the contract
Article 1970. If a person having capacity to contract accepts a
deposit made by one who is incapacitated, the former shall be
subject to all the obligations of a depositary, and may be compelled
to return the thing by the guardian, or administrator, of the person
who made the deposit, or by the latter himself if he should acquire
capacity.
Ex: minor deposit to adult
Article 1971. If the deposit has been made by a capacitated person
with another who is not, the depositor shall only have an action to
recover the thing deposited while it is still in the possession of the
depositary, or to compel the latter to pay him the amount by which
he may have enriched or benefited himself with the thing or its
price. However, if a third person who acquired the thing acted in
bad faith, the depositor may bring an action against him for its
recovery..
Adult to minor
Ex: bad faith = A deposited a watch with B, a minor who sold it to
C. If C acted in bad faith, A may recover the watch from him. But if
C acted in good faith, A’s only recourse is against B to compel him
to return the price received for the watch or the amount by which
he may have benefi ted himself.
OBLIGATIONS OF DEPOSITARY
Article 1972. The depositary is obliged to keep the thing safely and
to return it, when required, to the depositor, or to his heirs and
successors, or to the person who may have been designated in the
contract. His responsibility, with regard to the safekeeping and the
loss of the thing, shall be governed by the provisions of Title I of this
Book.
If the deposit is gratuitous, this fact shall be taken into account in
determining the degree of care that the depositary must observe.
(1766a)
The safekeeping and the return of the thing when required, are the
two primary obligations of the depositary
(1) Degree of care. — Ordinarily, the depositary must exercise over
the thing deposited the same diligence as he would exercise over
his property for two reasons:
First, because it is an essential requisite of the judicial relation
which involves the depositor’s confi dence in his good faith and
trustworthiness; and
Second, because of the presumption that the depositor, in
choosing the depositary, took into account the diligence which the
depositary is accustomed with respect to his own property.
(2) Rules applicable. — The liability of the depositary for the care
and delivery of the thing is governed by the rules on obligations
(a) He is liable if the loss occurs through his fault or negligence (Art.
1170.), even if the thing was insured. (Art. 2207.3 )
(b) The loss of the thing while in his possession, ordinarily raises a
presumption of fault on his part. (see Art. 1265.)
(c) The required degree of care is greater if the deposit is for
compensation than when it is gratuitous. This is similar to the rule
in agency (Art. 1909.) and common carriers. (Art. 1733.) But even
when it is gratuitous, due care must still be exercised.
(3) Return before specifi ed term. — The thing deposited must be
returned to the depositor whenever he claims it, even though a
specifi ed term or time for such may have been stipulated in the
contract
Article 1973. Unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, the
depositary cannot deposit the thing with a third person. If deposit
with a third person is allowed, the depositary is liable for the loss if
he deposited the thing with a person who is manifestly careless or
unfit. The depositary is responsible for the negligence of his
employees
Unless authorized by express stipulation, the depositary is not
allowed to deposit the thing with a third person because a deposit
is founded on trust and confi dence and it can be supposed that
the depositor, in choosing the depositary, has taken into
consideration the latter’s qualifi cation.
(1) Liability for loss. — Under Article 1973, the depositary is liable
for the loss of the thing deposited if:
(a) he transfers the deposit with a third person without authority
although there is no negligence on his part and the third person;
(b) he deposits the thing with a third person who is manifestly
careless or unfi t although authorized, even in the absence of
negligence; or
(c) the thing is lost through the negligence of his employees
whether the latter are manifestly careless or not.
(2) Exemption from liability. — The depositary is not responsible in
case the thing is lost without negligence of the third person with
whom he was allowed to deposit the thing if such third person is
not “manifestly careless or unfi t.”
Article 1974. The depositary may change the way of the deposit if
under the circumstances he may reasonably presume that the
depositor would consent to the change if he knew of the facts of
the situation. However, before the depositary may make such
change, he shall notify the depositor thereof and wait for his
decision, unless delay would cause danger
It follows the general rule that the depositary must take good care
of the thing with the diligence of a good father of a family.
Article 1975. The depositary holding certificates, bonds, securities
or instruments which earn interest shall be bound to collect the
latter when it becomes due, and to take such steps as may be
necessary in order that the securities may preserve their value and
the rights corresponding to them according to law.
The above provision shall not apply to contracts for the rent of
safety deposit boxes.
If the thing deposited should earn interest, the depositary is under
the obligation (1) to collect the interest as it becomes due and (2)
to take such steps as may be necessary to preserve its value and
the rights corresponding to it. Under Article 1975, the depositary is
bound to collect not only the interest but also the capital itself
when due.
Contract for rent of safety deposit boxes (safes)
A contract for the rent of safety deposit boxes (second paragraph)
is not an ordinary contract of lease of things4 but a special kind of
deposit; hence, it is not to be strictly governed by the provisions on
deposit. the relation between a bank renting out safe-deposit
boxes and its customer with respect to the contents of the box is
that of bailor and bailee.
Article 1976. Unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, the
depositary may commingle grain or other articles of the same kind
and quality, in which case the various depositors shall own or have
a proportionate interest in the mass
The depositary cannot commingle goods, even if they are of the
same kind and quality, if so stipulated.
Ex: A received from B for deposit 30 cavans of rice, from C, 20
cavans, and from D, 10 cavans, the rice being of the same kind and
quality. In the absence of any contrary stipulation, A can
commingle the 60 cavans and B, C, and D would become the co-
owners of the entire 60 cavans in the proportion of 1/2, 1/3, and
1/6, respectively.
If the articles deposited which belong to the different depositors
are not of the same kind and quality, it is the duty of the
depositary to keep them separate or at least identifi able as he
must return to each depositor the identical article delivered.
Article 1977. The depositary cannot make use of the thing
deposited without the express permission of the depositor.
Otherwise, he shall be liable for damages.
However, when the preservation of the thing deposited requires its
use, it must be used but only for that purpose.
Article 1978. When the depositary has permission to use the thing
deposited, the contract loses the concept of a deposit and
becomes a loan or commodatum, except where safekeeping is still
the principal purpose of the contract.
The permission shall not be presumed, and its existence must be
proved
(2) Thing deposited, money or other consumable thing. — If the
thing deposited is money or other consumable thing, the
permission to use it will result in its consumption and converts the
contract into a simple loan or mutuum. But if safekeeping is still
the principal purpose of the contract, it is still a deposit but an
irregular one; hence, it is called an irregular deposit. Bank deposits
are in the nature of irregular deposits but they are really loans
governed by the law on loans.
Irregular deposit distinguished from mutuum.
(1) Consumable thing demandable at will by depositor. — In an
irregular deposit (supra.), the consumable thing deposited may be
demanded at will by the irregular depositor for whose benefi t the
deposit has been constituted, while in mutuum, the lender is
bound by the provisions of the contract and cannot seek
restitution until the time for payment, as provided in the contract,
has arisen;
(2) Benefi t accrues to depositor only. — Another point of
difference consists in the fact that in an irregular deposit, the only
benefi t is that which accrues to the depositor, while in a loan, the
essential cause for the transaction is the necessity of the borrower.
A loan with a stipulation to pay interest is for the benefi t of both
parties
(3) Depositor has preference over other creditors. — The third one
is that the depositor in an irregular deposit has preference over
other creditors with respect to the thing deposited6 (see Art.
2241[13].), while common creditors enjoy no preference in the
distribution of the debtor’s property. (
Article 1979. The depositary is liable for the loss of the thing
through a fortuitous event:
(1) If it is so stipulated;
(2) If he uses the thing without the depositor's
permission;
(3) If he delays its return;
(4) If he allows others to use it, even though he himself
may have been authorized to use the same. (n)
Article 1980. Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in
banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions
concerning simple loan
(1) Contract of loan. — Deposits of money in banks, whether fi xed,
savings, and current, are really loans to a bank because the bank
can use the same for its ordinary transactions and for the banking
business in which it is engaged. Hence, such deposits are governed
by the provisions on mutuum or simple loan, and the rules on the
imposition of legal interest. (see Note 7, under Art. 1956.)9 While
the bank has the obligation to return the amount deposited, it has,
however, no obligation to return or deliver the same money that
was deposited.
(2) Relation of creditor and debtor. — Accordingly, the relation
between a depositor and a bank is that of a creditor and a debtor.
The depositor (creditor) lends the bank (debtor) money and the
bank agrees to pay the depositor on demand
Article 1981. When the thing deposited is delivered closed and
sealed, the depositary must return it in the same condition, and he
shall be liable for damages should the seal or lock be broken
through his fault.
Fault on the part of the depositary is presumed, unless there is
proof to the contrary.
As regards the value of the thing deposited, the statement of the
depositor shall be accepted, when the forcible opening is
imputable to the depositary, should there be no proof to the
contrary. However, the courts may pass upon the credibility of the
depositor with respect to the value claimed by him.
When the seal or lock is broken, with or without the depositary's
fault, he shall keep the secret of the deposit. (1769a)
Article 1982. When it becomes necessary to open a locked box or
receptacle, the depositary is presumed authorized to do so, if the
key has been delivered to him; or when the instructions of the
depositor as regards the deposit cannot be executed without
opening the box or receptacle.
Under Article 1981, the depositary has the obligation to:
(a) return the thing deposited when delivered closed and sealed, in
the same condition (par. 1.);
(b) pay for damages12 should the seal or lock be broken through
his fault (Ibid.) which is presumed unless proved otherwise (par.
2.); and
(c) keep the secret of the deposit when the seal or lock is broken,
with or without his fault
statement of the depositor is prima facie evidence only. This is
necessary in view of the natural tendency to exaggerate values.
(3) When depositary justifi ed to open. — The depositary is
authorized by Article 1982 to open the thing deposited which is
closed and sealed when there is (a) presumed authority; or (b)
necessity.
Article 1983. The thing deposited shall be returned with all its
products, accessories and accessions.
Should the deposit consist of money, the provisions relative to
agents in article 1896 shall be applied to the depositary.
If what has been deposited is money, the depositary has no right
to make use thereof (Art. 1978.) and, therefore, he is not liable to
pay interest. If the depositary be in delay or has used the money
without permission, he shall be liable for interest as indemnity. The
depositary owes interest on the sums he has applied to his own
use from the day on which he did so, and those which he still owes
after the extinguishment of the deposit.13
Article 1984. The depositary cannot demand that the depositor
prove his ownership of the thing deposited.
Nevertheless, should he discover that the thing has been stolen
and who its true owner is, he must advise the latter of the deposit.
If the owner, in spite of such information, does not claim it within
the period of one month, the depositary shall be relieved of all
responsibility by returning the thing deposited to the depositor.
If the depositary has reasonable grounds to believe that the thing
has not been lawfully acquired by the depositor, the former may
return the same
To constitute a deposit, it is not essential that the depositor be the
owner of the thing deposited. Furthermore, to acquire proof of
ownership may open the door to fraud and bad faith, for the
depositary, on the pretense of requiring proof of ownership, may
be able to retain the thing.
Article 1985. When there are two or more depositors, if they are
not solidary, and the thing admits of division, each one cannot
demand more than his share.
When there is solidarity or the thing does not admit of division, the
provisions of articles 1212 and 1214 shall govern. However, if there
is a stipulation that the thing should be returned to one of the
depositors, the depositary shall return it only to the person
designated.
Article 1212. Each one of the solidary creditors may do
whatever may be useful to the others, but not anything
which may be prejudicial to the latter.
Article 1214. The debtor may pay any one of the
solidary creditors; but if any demand, judicial or
extrajudicial, has been made by one of them, payment
should be made to him.
Article 1986. If the depositor should lose his capacity to contract
after having made the deposit, the thing cannot be returned
except to the persons who may have the administration of his
property and rights.
(1) The depositary is obliged to return the thing deposited, when
required, to the depositor, to his heirs and successors, or to the
person who may have been designated in the contract. (Art. 1972.)
(2) If the depositor was incapacitated at the time of making the
deposit, the property must be returned to his guardian or
administrator or the person who made the deposit or to the
depositor himself should he acquire capacity. (Art. 1970.)
(3) Even if the depositor had capacity at the time of making the
deposit but he subsequently loses his capacity during the deposit,
the thing must be returned to his legal representative. (Art. 1986.)
Article 1987. If at the time the deposit was made a place was
designated for the return of the thing, the depositary must take
the thing deposited to such place; but the expenses for
transportation shall be borne by the depositor.
If no place has been designated for the return, it shall be made
where the thing deposited may be, even if it should not be the
same place where the deposit was made, provided that there was
no malice on the part of the depositary.
Ex Suppose the deposit was made in the residence of A in Manila
and A transfers his residence to Pateros, Metro Manila and he has
to bring the thing deposited to his new place of residence. In the
absence of a contrary stipulation, the place of return is the
residence of A in Pateros, Metro Manila, provided there was no
malice on the part of A.
Article 1988. The thing deposited must be returned to the
depositor upon demand, even though a specified period or time
for such return may have been fixed.
This provision shall not apply when the thing is judicially attached
while in the depositary's possession, or should he have been
notified of the opposition of a third person to the return or the
removal of the thing deposited. In these cases, the depositary must
immediately inform the depositor of the attachment or
opposition.
Article 1989. Unless the deposit is for a valuable consideration, the
depositary who may have justifiable reasons for not keeping the
thing deposited may, even before the time designated, return it to
the depositor; and if the latter should refuse to receive it, the
depositary may secure its consignation from the court.
Article 1990. If the depositary by force majeure or government
order loses the thing and receives money or another thing in its
place, he shall deliver the sum or other thing to the depositor.
Article 1991. The depositor's heir who in good faith may have sold
the thing which he did not know was deposited, shall only be
bound to return the price he may have received or to assign his
right of action against the buyer in case the price has not been paid
him.
The above article envisions a situation where the depositary dies
and the object of the deposit is left with his heir who, in good faith,
sells it. The obligation of the heir is limited to the return of the
price received or to assign the right to collect the same if it has not
been paid and not the real value of the thing.
ex: Believing in good faith that the thing deposited by A with B,
worth P10,000.00 belonged to B, C, heir of B, sold the thing to D
who paid him P8,000.00. Under Article 1991, C is bound to return
to A P8,000.00, the price he received, and not P10,000.00 or C may
assign to A the right to collect from D the P8,000.00 if it has not
been paid. If C acted in bad faith, he is liable to pay A P10,000.00
plus damages which A may have suffered. C is also criminally liable
for estafa.
Obligations of the Depositor
Article 1992. If the deposit is gratuitous, the depositor is obliged to
reimburse the depositary for the expenses he may have incurred
for the preservation of the thing deposited. (1779a)
(1) Deposit gratuitous. — The above article applies only if the
deposit is gratuitous. It rests on equity. The depositor would have
incurred them just the same had the thing remained with him.
Without the duty of reimbursement imposed by the article, the
depositor would be enriching himself at the expense of the
depositary. The rule is different in commodatum. (see Art. 1941.)
Article 1941. The bailee is obliged to pay for the
ordinary expenses for the use and preservation of the
thing loaned.
As the law makes no distinction, the right to reimbursement covers
all expenses for preservation, whether ordinary or extraordinary.
The law refers to necessary expenses. Useful expenses or those for
pure luxury or mere pleasure are not covered.
(2) Deposit for compensation. — If the deposit is for a valuable
consideration, the expenses of preservation are borne by the
depositary because they are deemed included in the
compensation. There can, however, be a contrary stipulation
Article 1993. The depositor shall reimburse the depositary for any
loss arising from the character of the thing deposited, unless at the
time of the constitution of the deposit the former was not aware
of, /or was not expected to know the dangerous character of the
thing/, or unless he notified the depositary of the same/, or the
latter was aware of it without advice from the depositor/. (n)
As a rule, the depositary must be reimbursed for loss suffered by
him because of the character of the thing deposited. Under the
four (4) exceptions enumerated, the depositor is freed from
responsibility.
Article 1994. The depositary may retain the thing in pledge until
the full payment of what may be due him by reason of the deposit.
(1780)
This article gives an example of a pledge created by the operation
of law. (see Art. 2121.) The thing retained serves as security for the
payment of what may be due to the depositary by reason of the
deposit.
Article 1995. A deposit its extinguished:
(1) Upon the loss or destruction of the thing deposited;
 (2) In case of a gratuitous deposit, upon the death of
either the depositor or the depositary. (n)
The causes mentioned in Article 1995 are not exclusive. There are
other causes such as return of the thing, novation, merger,
expiration of the term, fulfi llment of the resolutory condition, etc.
(2) Deposit for compensation. — A deposit for a compensation is
not extinguished by the death of either party because, unlike a
gratuitous deposit, an onerous deposit is not personal in nature.
(see Art. 1411.) Hence, the rights and obligations arising therefrom
are transmissible to their respective heirs. (Art. 1178.) But the heirs
of either party have a right to terminate the deposit even before
the expiration of the term.
Necessary Deposit
Article 1996. A deposit is necessary:
(1) When it is made in compliance with a legal
obligation;
(2) When it takes place on the occasion of any calamity,
such as fire, storm, flood, pillage, shipwreck, or other
similar events. (1781a)
Article 1997. The deposit referred to in No. 1 of the preceding
article shall be governed by the provisions of the law establishing
it, and in case of its deficiency, by the rules on voluntary deposit.
The deposit mentioned in No. 2 of the preceding article shall be
regulated by the provisions concerning voluntary deposit and by
article 2168. (1782)
(1) A voluntary deposit is made by the free will of the depositor.
(Art. 1968.) In a necessary deposit, this freedom of choice is absent
(2) Articles 1996 and 1997 mention two kinds of necessary deposit.
The third kind is that made by travellers in hotels or inns. (Art.
1998.) The fourth kind is that made by passengers with common
carriers.
Necessary deposit in compliance with a legal obligation. Ex:
(1) The judicial deposit of a thing the possession of which is being
disputed in a litigation by two or more persons (Art. 538.);
(2) The deposit with a bank or public institution of public bonds or
instruments of credit payable to order or bearer given in usufruct
when the usufructuary does not give proper security for their
conservation (Art. 586.);
(3) The deposit of a thing pledged when the creditor uses the same
without the authority of the owner or misuses it in any other way
(Art. 2104.);
(4) Those required in suits as provided in the Rules of Court; and
(5) Those constituted to guarantee contracts with the government.
In this last case, the deposit arises from an obligation of public or
administrative character.
A deposit made in compliance with law is governed primarily by
the provisions of such law, and in default thereof, by the rules on
voluntary deposit.
(1) Deposit created by accident or fortuitous event. — In this type
of necessary deposit, the possession of movable property passes
from one person to another by accident or fortuitously through
force of circumstances and which the law imposes on the recipient
the obligations of a bailee. Here, the more immediate object is to
save the property rather than its safekeeping. Thus, if X saves Y’s
television set in a fi re, X is supposed to be its depositary.
(2) Governing rules. — Aside from the provisions concerning
voluntary deposit, this kind shall be governed by Article 2168 (Art.
1997, par. 2.) which reads: “When during a fi re, fl ood, storm or
other calamity, property is saved from destruction by another
person without the knowledge of the owner, the latter is bound to
pay the former just compensation.” Article 2168 establishes a
quasi-contract.
Article 1998. The deposit of effects made by travellers in hotels or
inns shall also be regarded as necessary. The keepers of hotels or
inns shall be responsible for them as depositaries, provided that
notice was given to them, or to their employees, of the effects
brought by the guests and that, on the part of the latter, they take
the precautions which said hotel-keepers or their substitutes
advised relative to the care and vigilance of their effects. (1783)
Article 1999. The hotel-keeper is liable for the vehicles, animals and
articles which have been introduced or placed in the annexes of
the hotel. (n)
Before keepers of hotels or inns may be held responsible as
depositaries with regard to the effects of their guests, the
following elements must concur:
(1) They have been previously informed about the effects brought
by the guests; and
(2) The latter have taken the precautions prescribed regarding
their safekeeping
Article 2000. The responsibility referred to in the two preceding
articles shall include the loss of, or injury to the personal property
of the guests caused by the servants or employees of the keepers
of hotels or inns as well as strangers; but not that which may
proceed from any force majeure. The fact that travellers are
constrained to rely on the vigilance of the keeper of the hotels or
inns shall be considered in determining the degree of care required
of him. (1784a)
Article 2001. The act of a thief or robber, who has entered the
hotel is not deemed force majeure, unless it is done with the use
of arms or through an irresistible force. (n)
Article 2002. The hotel-keeper is not liable for compensation if the
loss is due to the acts of the guest, his family, servants or visitors,
or if the loss arises from the character of the things brought into
the hotel. (n)
(1) The loss or injury is caused by his servants or employees as well
as by strangers (Art. 2000.) provided that notice has been given
and proper precautions taken (Art. 1998.); and
(2) The loss is caused by the act of a thief or robber done without
the use of arms and irresistible force. (Art. 2001.) for in this case,
the hotel-keeper is apparently negligent
Article 2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from
responsibility by posting notices to the effect that he is not liable
for the articles brought by the guest. Any stipulation between the
hotel-keeper and the guest whereby the responsibility of the
former as set forth in articles 1998 to 2001 is suppressed or
diminished shall be void. (n)
Article 2004. The hotel-keeper has a right to retain the things
brought into the hotel by the guest, as a security for credits on
account of lodging, and supplies usually furnished to hotel guests.
(n)
Sequestration or Judicial Deposit
Article 2005. A judicial deposit or sequestration takes place when
an attachment or seizure of property in litigation is ordered. (1785)
Article 2006. Movable as well as immovable property may be the
object of sequestration. (1786)
Article 2007. The depositary of property or objects sequestrated
cannot be relieved of his responsibility until the controversy which
gave rise thereto has come to an end, unless the court so orders.
(1787a)
Article 2008. The depositary of property sequestrated is bound to
comply, with respect to the same, with all the obligations of a good
father of a family. (1788)
A deposit may be constituted judicially or extrajudicially. (Art.
1964.) Judicial deposit or sequestration takes place when an
attachment or seizure of property in litigation is ordered by a
court.1 (Art. 2005.) For example, properties may be attached by
the sheriff upon the fi ling of a complaint (Rule 57, Rules of Court.),
or a receiver (a disinterested party) may be appointed by the court
to administer and preserve the property in litigation2 (Rule 59,
ibid.), or personal property may be seized by the sheriff in suits of
replevin or manual delivery of personal property.
Obligation of depositary of sequestrated property. The depositary
of sequestrated property is the person appointed by the court.
(Art. 2007.) He has the obligation to take care of the property with
the diligence of a good father of a family (Art. 2008.) and he may
not be relieved of his responsibility until the litigation is ended or
the court so orders. (Art. 2007.)
Judicial and extrajudicial deposits distinguished. The differences
between judicial and extrajudicial deposits are:
(1) Cause or origin. — judicial, by the will of the court; extrajudicial,
by the will of the parties; hence, there is a contract;
(2) Purpose. — judicial, as security and to secure the right of a
party to recover in case of a favorable judgment; extrajudicial,
custody and safekeeping of the thing;
(3) Subject matter. — judicial, either movable or immovable
property but generally immovable property; extrajudicial, only
movable property;
(4) Remuneration. — judicial, always remunerated (onerous);
extrajudicial, may be compensated or not, but generally gratuitous;
and
(5) In whose behalf it is held. — judicial, in behalf of the person
who, by the judgment, has a right; extrajudicial, in behalf of the
depositor or third person designated.
Article 2009. As to matters not provided for in this Code, judicial
sequestration shall be governed by the Rules of Court.
Bpi v iac zshornack
L-66826, Aug. 19, 1988
Facts:
A contract of depositum was entered into by Garcia, on behalf of
COMTRUST (BPI), wherein he received US $3,000 (foreign exchange)
from Zshornack for safekeeping. Later on or over five months later,
Zshornack demanded the return of the money but the bank refused
alleging that the amount was sold and transferred to her current
account.
Doc executed: We acknowledged (sic) having received from you
today the sum of US DOLLARS: THREE THOUSAND ONLY
(US$3,000.00) for safekeeping.
Arguments:
COMTRUST (BPI): The parties entered into a contract of depositum
which banks do not enter into. Thus, Garcia exceeded his powers
when he entered into the contract on behalf of the bank, hence, the
bank cannot be liable under the contract.
Issue: WON the contract entered into is a contract of depositum.
Held:
Garcia authority:
The second cause of action is based on a document purporting to
be signed by COMTRUST, a copy of which document was attached
to the complaint. In short, the second cause of action was based on
an actionable document. It was therefore incumbent upon the bank
to specifically deny under oath the due execution of the document,
as prescribed under Rule 8, Section 8, if it desired: (1) to question
the authority of Garcia to bind the corporation; and (2) to deny its
capacity to enter into such contract. [See, E.B. Merchant v.
International Banking Corporation, 6 Phil. 314 (1906).] No sworn
answer denying the due execution of the document in question, or
questioning the authority of Garcia to bind the bank, or denying the
bank's capacity to enter into the contract, was ever filed. Hence, the
bank is deemed to have admitted not only Garcia's authority, but
also the bank's power, to enter into the contract in question.
Yes. The situation is one contemplated in Art. 1962 of the NCC:
Art. 1962. A deposit is constituted from the moment a person
receives a thing belonging to another, with the obligation of safely
keeping it and of returning the same. If the safekeeping of the thing
delivered is not the principal purpose of the contract, there is no
deposit but some other contract.
Note: But because the subject of the contract here is a foreign
exchange, it is covered by Central Bank Circular No. 20 which
requires that, “All receipts of foreign exchange by
any resident person, firm, company or corporation shall be sold to
authorized agents of the Central Bank by the recipients within one
business day following the receipt of such foreign exchange.”
Since the document and the subsequent acts of the parties show
that they intended the bank to safekeep the foreign exchange, and
return it later to Zshornack, who alleged in his complaint that he is
a Philippine resident, the parties did not intend to sell the US dollars
to the Central Bank within one business day from receipt.
Otherwise, the contract of depositum would never have been
entered into at all.
In other words, the transaction between Zshornack and the bank
was void having been executed against the provisions of a
mandatory law (CB Circ No. 20). Being in pari delicto, the law cannot
afford either of them remedy.
triple v filipino merchs. (insurance)
f:
-de asis dined at petitioner's kamayan restaurant
-de asis availed of the valet parking services of pet.
-car was carnapped
-FM as subrogee now sues TV for damages
-TV argues that:
XXcomplaint failed to support allegations of recklessness and
negligence
XXPetitioner further argued that in accepting the complimentary
valet parking service, De Asis received a parking ticket whereunder
it is so provided that "[Management and staff will not be
responsible for any loss of or damage incurred on the vehicle nor
of valuables contained therein", a provision which, to petitioner's
mind, is an explicit waiver of any right to claim indemnity for the
loss of the car; and that De Asis knowingly assumed the risk of loss
when she allowed petitioner to park her vehicle, adding that its
valet parking service did not include extending a contract of
insurance or warranty for the loss of the vehicle.
-rtc ruled in favor of FM
-TV appealed to CA reiterating its argument that it was not a
depositary of the subject car and that it exercised due diligence
and prudence in the safe keeping of the vehicle, in handling the
car-napping incident and in the supervision of its employees.
i: TV liable?
H: yes
-When De Asis entrusted the car in question to petitioners valet
attendant while eating at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant, the
former expected the car's safe return at the end of her meal. Thus,
petitioner was constituted as a depositary of the same car.
Petitioner cannot evade liability by arguing that neither a contract
of deposit nor that of insurance, guaranty or surety for the loss of
the car was constituted when De Asis availed of its free valet
parking service.
In a contract of deposit, a person receives an object belonging to
another with the obligation of safely keeping it and returning the
same.[3]cralaw A deposit may be constituted even without any
consideration. It is not necessary that the depositary receives a fee
before it becomes obligated to keep the item entrusted for
safekeeping and to return it later to the depositor.
claim stub
The parking claim stub embodying the terms and conditions of the
parking, including that of relieving petitioner from any loss or
damage to the car, is essentially a contract of adhesion, drafted
and prepared as it is by the petitioner alone with no participation
whatsoever on the part of the customers, like De Asis, who merely
adheres to the printed stipulations therein appearing. While
contracts of adhesion are not void in themselves, yet this Court will
not hesitate to rule out blind adherence thereto if they prove to be
one-sided under the attendant facts and circumstances.
Hence, and as aptly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, petitioner
must not be allowed to use its parking claim stub's exclusionary
stipulation as a shield from any responsibility for any loss or
damage to vehicles or to the valuables contained therein. Here, it
is evident that De Asis deposited the car in question with the
petitioner as part of the latter's enticement for customers by
providing them a safe parking space within the vicinity of its
restaurant. In a very real sense, a safe parking space is an added
attraction to petitioner's restaurant business because customers
are thereby somehow assured that their vehicle are safely kept,
rather than parking them elsewhere at their own risk. Having
entrusted the subject car to petitioner's valet attendant, customer
De Asis, like all of petitioner's customers, fully expects the security
of her car while at petitioner's premises/designated parking areas respondent have the right to demand the release of the said
and its safe return at the end of her visit at petitioner's restaurant. materials and equipment or claim for damages?

Ca agro print
roman catholic bishop of jaro v de la pena
f:
-fr de la pena was assigned as trustee for 6k
-he then deposited in his personal account P19,000 which included
6k
-during the war, de la pena was arrested by military as political
prisoner
-The arrest of Father De la Peña and the confiscation of the funds
in the bank were the result of the claim of the military authorities
that he was an insurgent and that the funds deposited had been
collected by him is 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.
i:won de la pena is liable for the loss of the 6k entrusted to him
h:no. civ code"a person obliged to give something is also bound to
preserve it with the diligence pertaining to a good father of a
family" civ code also provides that "no one shall be liable for
events which could not be foreseen, or which having been
foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly
mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation so declares"
Under Article 1311 of the Civil Code, contracts are binding upon
the parties (and their assigns and heirs) who execute them. When
there is no privity of contract, there is likewise no obligation or
liability to speak about and thus no cause of action arises.
Specifically, in an action against the depositary, the burden is on
the plaintiff to prove the bailment or deposit and the performance
of conditions precedent to the right of action.39 A depositary is
obliged to return the thing to the depositor, or to his heirs or
successors, or to the person who may have been designated in the
contract.40
In the present case, the record is bereft of any contract of deposit,
oral or written, between petitioners and respondent. If at all, it was
only between petitioners and Moreman. And granting arguendo
that there was indeed a contract of deposit between petitioners
and Moreman, it is still incumbent upon respondent to prove its
existence and that it was executed in his favor. However,
respondent miserably failed to do so. The only pieces of evidence
respondent presented to prove the contract of deposit were
the delivery receipts.41 Significantly, they are unsigned and not duly
received or authenticated by either Moreman, petitioners or
respondent or any of their authorized representatives. Hence, those
delivery receipts have no probative value at all. While our laws
grant a person the remedial right to prosecute or institute a civil
action against another for the enforcement or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong,42 every cause of
action ex-contractu must be founded upon a contract, oral or
written, express or implied.
Yht print

-By placing the money in the bank and mixing it with his personal
funds De la Peña did not thereby assume an obligation different Ca agro 4-5
from that under which he would have lain if such deposit had not
been made, nor did he thereby make himself liable to repay the Durban 7-10
money at all hazards. If the had been forcibly taken from his pocket
or from his house by the military forces of one of the combatants
during a state of war, it is clear that under the provisions of the
Civil Code he would have been exempt from responsibility. The fact
that he placed the trust fund in the bank in his personal account
does not add to his responsibility. Such deposit did not make him a
debtor who must respond at all hazards.

-There was no law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did and

there was no law which changed his responsibility be reason of the
deposit.

Durban print

JOSEPH CHAN, WILSON CHAN and LILY CHAN, Petitioners,

vs. BONIFACIO S. MACEDA, JR., print

It must be stressed that respondent's claim for damages is based

on petitioners' failure to return or to release to him the
construction materials and equipment deposited by Moreman to
their warehouse. Hence, the essential issues to be resolved are: (1)
Has respondent presented proof that the construction materials
and equipment were actually in petitioners' warehouse when he
asked that the same be turned over to him? (2) If so, does