(COMMODATUM!

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

JOSE V. BAGTAS, FELICIDAD M. BAGTAS, Administratrix of the Intestate Estate left by
the late Jose V. Bagtas
G.R. No. L-17474. October 25, 1962
PADILLA, J.:

SYLLABUS:

COMMODATUM: Article 1933 of the Civil Code provides that a commodatum is essentially
gratuitous. If any compensation is to be paid by him who acquires the use, the contract
ceases to be a commodatum.

OBLIGATION OF THE BAILEE FOR THE LOSS OF THE THING, EVEN THROUGH A
FORTUITOUS EVENT: Article 1942 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 . . .

(3) If the thing loaned has been delivered with appraisal of its value, unless there is
a stipulation exempting the bailee from responsibility in case of a fortuitous event;

FACTS:

Jose V. Bagtas borrowed from the Republic of the Philippines through the Bureau of Animal
Industry three bulls for a period of one year from May 1948 to May 1949 for breeding
purposes. The bulls where valued as P 1.176.46, P 1,320.56 and P 744.46. Upon the
expiration of the contract, Bagtas asked for the renewal for another year (until 1950) but
the renewal was approved for only a single bull and the Bureau requested for the return of
the other two. Bagtas offered to pay for the value of the three bulls but the Bureau
reiterated that either the bulls be returned or their book value should be paid. Bagtas failed
to return all three bulls or pay hence the Republic commenced an action against him for the
proper payment and return of the bulls. Felicidad Bagtas, surviving spouse of deceased,
alleged that one of the bulls died from gunshot wounds inflicted during a Huk raid and the
other two were already returned to the Bureau. Felicidad now contends that since the bull
was accidentally killed during a raid or due to force majeure, she is relieved from the duty
of returning the bull or paying its value. Felicidad further contends that the contract was
commodatum and for that reason, the Bureau retained ownership over the bull and it
should suffer the loss.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Contract is a commodatum

2. Whether or not Bagtas should be held liable even with the occurrence of a
fortuitous event

HELD:

1. No. The contract could not be considered as commodatum because a contract of

commodatum is essentially gratuitous (Article 1933 of the civil code). In this
case, the breeding fee is considered a compensation thus the contract is in fact a
lease of the bull.

2. Yes. Even assuming that the contract is a commodatum, Bagtas would still be
liable pursuant to article 1942 of the Civil code which provides that a bailee in a
contract of commodatum is liable for the loss of the thing, even if it should be
through a fortuitous event if (1) he keeps it longer than the period stipulated and
(2) I the thing loaned has been delivered with appraisal of its value. In this case
Bagtas kept the bull after the contract expired and the bulls had each an
appraised book value and no there is no stipulation that in case of loss of the bull
due to fortuitous event Bagtas would be exempt from liability.