G.R. No.

L-46240, November 3, 1939

MARGARITA QUINTOS and ANGEL A. ANSALDO, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
BECK, defendant-appellee.
IMPERIAL, J.:

FACTS:
 Defendant Beck, as the tenant of plaintiff, was gratuitously granted by the latter the use of the 3
gas heaters and the 4 electric lamps which are in the house being rented.
 When plaintiff sold on September 14, 1936 the property to Maria Lopez and Rosario Lopez, the
defendant was given 60 days to vacate the premises (pursuant to one of the clauses of the
contract), and that said furniture be returned.
 Defendant informed plaintiff through a letter that the latter call for the furniture on the ground floor
of the house but could NOT give up the 3 gas heaters and the 4 electric lamps because he would
use them until November 15, 1936 when the lease in due to expire
 Plaintiff, however, refused to get the furniture in view of the fact that the defendant had declined
to make delivery of ALL of them.
 On November 15, 1936, before leaving the house, defendant deposited with the Sheriff ALL the
furniture belonging to the plaintiff and they are now on deposit in the warehouse situated at No.
1521, Rizal Avenue, in the custody of the said sheriff.

CFI-Manila: (1) Defendant was ordered to return to the plaintiff the 3 gas heaters and 4 electric lamps
found in possession of the Sheriff; (2) that she call for the other furniture from the said sheriff of Manila
at her own expense, and (3) that the fees which the Sheriff may charge for the deposit of the furniture
be paid pro rata by both parties, without pronouncement as to the costs.

ISSUES:
1. WON the defendant complied with his obligation to return the furniture upon the plaintiff's
demand?
2. WON the plaintiff is bound to bear the deposit fees thereof?
3. WON the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of litigation?

HELD:
1. NO.
 The contract entered into between the parties is one of commadatum, because the plaintiff
gratuitously granted the use of the furniture to the defendant, reserving for herself the ownership
thereof
 The defendant bound himself to return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latter’s demand
(pursuant to the clause 7 of the contract). The obligation voluntarily assumed by the defendant to
return the furniture upon the plaintiff's demand, means that he should return all of them to the
plaintiff at the latter's residence or house.
 DEFENDANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH HIS OBLIGATION when he MERELY PLACED THEM at the
disposal of the plaintiff retaining for his benefit the three gas heaters and the four eletric lamps.
 Art. 1169 (now 1248) – not applicable – creditor cannot be compelled to partially receive the
prestations; debtor cannot be required to make partial payments.
 Hence, plaintiff did not fail to comply with her obligation to get the furniture when they were
offered to her.
2. NO.
 Because defendant voluntarily undertaken to return all the furniture to the plaintiff upon the latter’s
demand.
 As a BAILEE, defendant, in the first place, was not entitled to place the furniture on deposit.
 Consequently, the plaintiff has no duty to accept the offer to return the furniture, because the
defendant wanted to retain the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps.

As to the VALUE of the furniture:

 Defendant is not obliged to pay for the value of the furniture in case he fails to return the same
because under par. 6 of the stipulations of the facts, the defendant has neither agreed to nor
admitted the correctness of the said value.
 The determination of the value lies on the trial court evidence which the parties may desire to
present.

3. NO.
 Because the plaintiff is the prevailing party. (Sec. 487, CivPro)
 It shall be borne by the defendant because he was the one who breached the contract of
commodatum for refusing to return and deliver all the furniture upon the plaintiff's demand.

MODIFIED.
Defendant is ordered to return and deliver to the plaintiff’ residence all the furniture.