Chan v maceda

Facts:
Respondent entered into a building construction contract with Moreman Builders Co.,
Inc.
Respondent purchased various construction materials and equipment. Moreman
deposit them with in the warehouse of petitioners, free of charge.
Moreman failed to complete the construction, and respondent filed for the rescission of
the contract.
During the pendency of the case, respondent ordered the petitioners to return to him the
deposit. Petitioner answered that it was withdrawn by Moreman.
Respondent filed an action for damages against petitioner.
Denied first, but was reconsidered later on, 10 years after.
Trial court issued an order declaring petitioners in default.
CA dismissed the petition

Issues:
Whether there is a contract of deposit.

Held:
No, there is no contract of deposit between the petitioner and respondent. In an action
against the depositary, burden is on the plaintiff to prove the bailment or deposit and the
performance of conditions precedent to the right of action.
In this case, only unsigned delivery receipts were presented. There was no deposit
contract between them.

Triple V vs Fil. Merchants

Facts:
A certain Mary Jo De Asis dined at petitioner’s Kamayan Restaurant. She availed the
valet parking service of the petitioner. The car was assigned to her by Crispa Textile Inc.
Few minutes later, the car was lost.
Crispa filed a claim against its insurer, the respondent FMICI. Having indemnified
Crispa, FMICI filed a case against petitioner.
Trial court ruled in favor of respondents, CA affirmed.
On defense, the petitioner questioned the nature of the insurance, stating that there is
no valid subrogation of rights between respondent and Crispa.
Furthermore, the stub given to De Asis states that petitioner not liable for loss

Issue:
W/O petitioner is liable.

Held:
Yes, there is a contract of deposit when De Asis entrusted the car to the petitioner. The
Valet parking was a part of petitioner’s enticement for customers, ensuring safe parking
space.
The terms and conditions in the stub is a contract of adhesion, which cannot shield the
petitioner as it is one sided.

Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro v Dela Pena

Facts:
Plaintiff is trustee of a charitable bequest made for the construction of a leper hospital
and Father De la Pena was the duly authorized representative to receive the legacy.
He deposited the amount to his personal account in Hongkong and Shanghai Bank.
During the war, De la Pena was arrested by the US military. The deposit was
confiscated as it was alleged to have been for revolutionary purposes.

Issue:
W/O De la Pena is liable for the loss of the money.
Held:
No, he is not liable. The court ruled that no one shall be liable for events which cannot
be foreseen or which having foreseen but inevitable.
There was no law prohibiting him to deposit the money to his personal account. Such
act cannot be the basis of his negligence.

CA Agro-industrial development corporation v CA and Security bank

Facts:
Petitioner and Ramon and Paula Pugao entered into an agreement where the former
purchases land from the latter.
It was agreed that the title of the lands shall be transferred to petitioner upon full
payment, and the owner’s copies of the certificate of titles shall be deposited in a safe
deposit box of any bank.
Respondent bank issued 2 renter keys, and one guard key.
Thereafter, Margarita Ramos offered to buy the subject lands. Upon checking the titles
in the SDB, it yielded no certificates.
The delay caused losses for petitioner, which prompted it to file a case against the
respondent.
TC decided against petitioner, since the contract between bank and petitioner states
that bank has no liability. CA affirmed.

Issues:
W/O the contract is one of bailment.

Held:
Yes, it is a special kind of deposit. There is a bailment contract between the bank and
the renters. The policy that

Javellana v Lim
Facts:
Jose and others executed a document in favor of Angel, wherein it stated that they had
received a sum of PhP 2,600.86 as a “deposit” without interest from the latter. The
document also stipulated that they would return the same amount jointly and severally
on 20 January 1898.
But when the return of the amount was due, Jose asked for the extension in exchange
of 15% interest.
However, despite the extension, respondents fail to return it.

Issue:
Was there a contract of deposit?
Held:
No, it was a contract of mutuum. Notwithstanding the deposit contract, the subsequent
agreements of the parties transformed the contract into a contract of loan.

Gavieres v Tavera

Facts:

The Plaintiff alleges that Doña Ignacia deposited with Don Trinidad the amount of 3000
pesos in gold, as a deposit payable on two months’ notice in advance, with interest at
6% per annum that was evidenced by an agreement signed by the two parties on
October 31, 1859. Estate of Dona Ignacia filed for the recovery

Issues:
Whether or not it’s a contract of deposit

Held:
No, it’s a contract of loan. There is no deposit, since it incurred interest which has been
received by the petitioner. Furthermore, the claim is barred by prescription, as personal
actions like contract of loan ceases legal effect after 20 years.

Baron V David
Facts:
Petitioners deposited palay with respondent’s mill, and the latter may dispose them
himself.
Sometime later, the mill was destroyed by fire.
Defendant states that it was a deposit contract, absolving him of any liability
However, it was found that that the palay deposited was already milled and sold before
the fire.

Issue:
Whether it was a contract of