QUESTIONS FOR CONCEPT OF DEPOSIT (ARTICLES 1980 – 1994)

By: Donards Kim A. Tanedo & Dana Lorraine C. Faurillo (JD 2-4)

1) What are the facts, main issue, and ruling in the case of Guingona, Jr. v Fiscal of Manila,
in relation to Contract of Loan and/or Relation of Creditor and Debtor?

2) What are the facts, main issue, and ruling in the case of Integrated Realty v PNB, in
relation to Contract of Loan and/or Relation of Creditor and Debtor?

3) Expound on why the depositor needs not prove his ownership?

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

4) What was the observation made with regards to the “Effect of failure of owner to claim
within one month”?

It is not enough to declare the depositary exempt from

responsibility if the true owner does not claim the property
within 30 days. Suppose the depositary discovers the true owner
and notifies him, but the maker of the deposit demands its return
before the 30 days expire, can the depositary refuse to return the
thing deposited if the true owner has made no claim as yet?

Such course would be not only contrary to the nature of deposit

but also risky, because if for some other reason the owner is
precluded from claiming the thing as against the depositor, the
depositary who refuses to return will be liable for conversion. Or
is it intended that he should not be so liable
 5) Give an example for “Alienation in good faith by depositary’s heir”

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.

6) What is the difference between Deposit gratuitous and Deposit for compensation under
“Obligation to pay expenses of preservation”?

Deposit Gratuitous

This 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

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.