CREDIT TRANSACTION - TITLE XII - DEPOSIT CHAPTER 3

Necessary deposit pay the former just compensation.” Article 2168

establishes a quasi-contract.
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 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.
Necessary deposit in compliancewith a legal
obligation.
The following are examples of such deposit:
(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
When deposit is necessary.
misuses it in any other way (Art. 2104.);
A deposit may be voluntary (Art. 1968.) or necessary.
(4) Those required in suits as provided in the Rules of
(1) A voluntary deposit is made by the free will of the Court; and
depositor. (Art. 1968.) In a necessary deposit, this
(5) Those constituted to guarantee contracts with the
freedom of choice is absent.
government. In this last case, the deposit arises from an
(2) Articles 1996 and 1997 mention two kinds of obligation of public or administrative character.
necessary deposit. The third kind is that made by
A deposit made in compliance with law is governed
travellers in hotels or inns. (Art. 1998.) The fourth kind
primarily by the provisions of such law, and in default
is that made by passengers with common carriers. (see
thereof, by the rules on voluntary deposit. (Art. 1997,
Art. 1754.)
par. 1.)
Necessary deposit made on the occasion of any
calamity.
Article 1998. The deposit of effects made by travellers
(1) Deposit created by accident or fortuitous event.
in hotels or inns shall also be regarded as necessary. The
— In this type of necessary deposit, the
keepers of hotels or inns shall be responsible for them
possession of movable property passes from
as depositaries, provided that notice was given to them,
one person to another by accident or
or to their employees, of the effects brought by the
fortuitously through force of circumstances and
guests and that, on the part of the latter, they take the
which the law imposes on the recipient the
precautions which said hotel-keepers or their
obligations of a bailee.
substitutes advised relative to the care and vigilance of
(2) Governing rules. — Aside from the provisions their effects.
concerning voluntary deposit, this kind shall be
Article 1999. The hotel-keeper is liable for the vehicles,
governed by Article 2168 (Art. 1997, par. 2.)
animals and articles which have been introduced or
which reads: “When during a fire, flood, storm
placed in the annexes of the hotel.
or other calamity, property is saved from
destruction by another person without the
knowledge of the owner, the latter is bound to
CREDIT TRANSACTION - TITLE XII - DEPOSIT CHAPTER 3
Deposit by travellers in hotels and inns.
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.
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.
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.
When hotel-keeper liable.
In the following cases, the hotel-keeper is liable
regardless of the amount of care exercised:
(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.
When hotel-keeper not liable.
The hotel keeper is not liable in the following cases:
(1) The loss or injury is caused by force majeure, like
flood, fire (Art. 2000.), theft or robbery by a stranger
(not by hotel-keeper’s servant or employee) with the
use of arms or irresistible force (Art. 2001.), etc., unless
he is guilty of fault or negligence in failing to provide
against the loss or injury from his cause (see Arts. 1170,
1174.);
(2) The loss is due to the acts of the guests, his family,
servants, or visitors (Art. 2002.); and
(3) The loss arises from the character of the things
brought into the hotel. (Ibid.)
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.
Exemption or diminution of liability.
The rule in this article is similar to the rule on common
carriers which does not allow a common carrier to
dispense with or limit his responsibility by stipulation or
by posting of notices. (see Art. 1760.) Such stipulation is
deemed contrary to law, morals, and public policy. (Art.
1306.)
(1) Hotel-keepers and inn-keepers in offering their
accommodations to the public, practically volunteer as
depositaries, and as such, they should be subject to an
extraordinary degree of responsibility for the protection
and safety of travellers who have no alternative but rely
on the good faith and care of those with whom they
take lodging. (Art. 2000.)
(2) Furthermore, inn-keepers, by the very nature of
their business, have supervision and control of their
inns and the premises thereof. As a matter of fact,
authorities are to the effect that it is not necessary in
order to hold an inn-keeper liable that the effects of the
CREDIT TRANSACTION - TITLE XII - DEPOSIT CHAPTER 3
guests be actually delivered to him or his employees; it
is enough that they are within the inn.

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.

Hotel-keeper’s right to retain.

The right of retention recognized in this article is in the

nature of a pledge created by operation of law. (see
Arts. 2121-2122.) It is given to hotel-keepers to
compensate them for the liabilities imposed upon them
by law. The bailee in commodatum may likewise retain
the thing loaned for damages by reason of defects
thereof. (Arts. 1944, 1951.)

Incidentally, the act of obtaining food or

accommodation in a hotel or inn without paying
therefor constitutes estafa. (Arts. 315, Sec. 2[e], Revised
Penal Code.)