Wednesday, January 8, 2014

[CASE DIGEST] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE V. BAGTAS (G.R. No. L-17474)


October 25, 1962
 
Ponente: Padilla, J.

FACTS:

·         On May 8, 1948, Jose V. Bagtas borrowed from the Republic of the Philippines through the Bureau of Animal Industry three bulls: a Red Sindhi with a book value of P1,176.46, a Bhagnari, of P1,320.56 and a Sahiniwal, of P744.46, for a period of one year from May 8, 1948 to May 7, 1949 for breeding purposes subject to a government charge of breeding fee of 10% of the book value of the bulls. 

·         Upon the expiry of the contract, Bagtas asked for a renewal for another period of one year. However, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved a renewal thereof of only one bull (Sahiniwal) for another year from 8 May 1949 to 7 May 1950 and requested the return of the other two. Despite this, Bagtas failed to return the two other bulls.

·         In 1950, Bagtas wrote to the Director of Animal Industry that he would pay the value of the three bulls. He was given until October 1950 to either return the three bulls or pay for their book value. Bagtas failed to pay the book value of the three bulls or to return them. So, on 20 December 1950 in the CFI of Manila, the Republic of the Philippines commenced an action against him praying that he be ordered to return the three bulls loaned to him or to pay their book value in the total sum of P3,241.45 and the unpaid breeding fee in the sum of P199.62, both with interests, and costs; and that other just and equitable relief be granted.

·         Defense of Bagtas: He could not return the three bulls because: (a) the peace and order situation in Cagayan Valley was bad; and (b) he had a pending appeal re: to deduct from the book value of the bulls corresponding yearly depreciation of 8% from the date of acquisition.

·         CFI Ruling: Bagtas was ordered to pay the sum of P3,625.09 the total value of the three bulls plus the breeding fees in the amount of P626.17 with interest on both sums of (at) the legal rate from the filing of this complaint and costs.

·         Subsequently, the Republic moved ex parte for a writ of execution. By this time, Bagtas had already passed away. His estate was represented in court by his wife, Felicidad, who was also the administratix. 

·         Felicidad filed a motion alleging that in 1952, the two bulls Sindhi and Bhagnari were returned to the Bureau Animal of Industry and that sometime in November 1958, the third bull, the Sahiniwal, died by accident from a gunshot wound inflicted during a Huk raid on Hacienda Felicidad Intal in Cagayan. As such, she prayed that the writ of execution be quashed on the ground that the estate did not have liability over the two bulls that have been returned and the loss of the third one, which had died due to force majeure.

RULING:  

Writ of execution against the estate of Bagtas is set aside, but the estate remains liable for the sum of P859.63, the value of the bull which has not been returned to the Republic.


Whether the contract entered into by Bagtas and the Republic is a commodatum.  – NO.

·         A contract of commodatum is essentially gratuitous. In the present case, the use of the bulls for breeding purposes came with a breeding fee of 10% of their book value. If the breeding fee be considered a compensation, then the contract would be a lease of the bull.

Whether Bagtas is liable for the loss of the third bull, which died due to a fortuitous event. – YES.

·         Under Article 1671 of the Civil Code, the lessee (Bagtas) would be subject to the responsibilities of a possessor in bad faith, because he had continued possession of the bull even after the expiry of the contract.

·         But even if we were to assume that the subject contract was a commodatum, Bagtas would still be liable for the third bull, because Article 1942 of the Civil Code provides that a bailee in a contract of commodatum is liable for loss of the things, even if it should be through a fortuitous event: (a) If he keeps it longer than the period stipulated; or (b) If the thing loaned has been delivered with appraisal of its value, unless there is a stipulation exempting the bailee from responsibility in case of a fortuitous event.

·         In the present case, the original period of the loan was from 8 May 1948 to 7 May 1949. The loan of one bull was renewed for another period of one year to end on 8 May 1950. But Bagtas kept and used the bull until November 1953 when during a Huk raid it was killed by stray bullets. 

·         Furthermore, when lent and delivered to Bagtas, the bulls had each an appraised book value, to wit: the Sindhi, at P1,176.46, the Bhagnari at P1,320.56 and the Sahiniwal at P744.46. It was not stipulated that in case of loss of the bull due to fortuitous event Bagtas would be exempt from liability.