CA AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP vs.

COURT OF
APPEALS
G. R. No. 90027; March 3, 1993
DAVIDE JR., J:
DOCTRINE: 1.Rentals of safety deposit boxes from banks are a special kind of
deposit, hence, the relationship between the bank and its customers are that of a
bailee and bailor.
2. Diligence required in the safekeeping of safety deposit box is that of a good
father of a family, unless there is an agreement between the parties as to the
diligence to be observed by the bank.
Facts:
Petitioner thru its president Aguirre entered into an agreement with the
Spouses Ramon and Paula Purgao for the former’s purchase of two parcels of
land from the latter. Among the terms and conditions of the agreement embodied
in a Memorandum of True and Actual Sale of Land were that the titles to the lots
shall be transferred to the petitioner upon payment of the purchase price and that
the titles shall be deposited in a safety deposit box of any bank. Hence, they
rented a safety deposit box from the private respondent Security Bank and
subsequently, the petitioner together with the spouses entered into a contract of
lease for the safety deposit box. Two renter keys were given to the petitioner and
the spouses and a guard key remained in the possession of the respondent bank.
The box has two keyholes which needed one of the renter keys and the guard key
which was in the possession of the bank for it to be opened. The titles were then
deposited inside the box. Thereafter, when the petitioner and the spouses wanted
to retrieve the title from the safety deposit box, there were no titles that can be
seen inside.
Issue:
What type of contract is entered into by the bank and its customers for the rental
of a safety deposit box?
Held:
The contract in the case at bar is a special kind of deposit.It cannot be
characterized as an ordinary contract of lease under Article 1643 because the full and
absolute possession and control of the safety deposit box was not given to the joint
renters. The guard key of the box remained with the respondent Bank; without this
key, neither of the renters could open the box. On the other hand, the respondent Bank
could not likewise open the box without the renter's key. In this case, the said key had
a duplicate which was made so that both renters could have access to the box.