Lavadia v Cosme May 9, 1941 ENGRACIA LAVADIA, et. al vs.

ROSARIO MENDOZA AND OTHER COSME DIAZ, M p: DOCTRINE: 1. Even among co-owners of a thing, one of them may be the depository, and when he is, he is subject to the same obligations imposed by law on all depository with respect to the preservation of the thing with the care, diligence and interest of a good father. 2. For the administration and better enjoyment of thing owned in common, according to article 398 of the Civil Code, it is mandatory that there be an agreement of the majority of the participants (owners). FACTS: 1880: Certain jewelry were manufactured through the efforts of 6 pious ladies of Pagsanjan, Laguna, o They were sisters Pia and Paula Lavadia, sisters Martina and Matea Lavadia, and sisters Elizabeth Lavadia and Engracia Lavadia. The ladies contributed their own jewelry in the making of the crown and also contributed money in the cost of making them. o The jewelries consist of a golden crown encrusted with diamonds and a diamond choker, bright, also a belt embedded with diamonds and diamonds, a gold necklace also completely embedded with glitter, gold bracelet encrusted with diamonds and diamonds, iron silver gilt where the jewels are placed above, and other various pieces of gold silver or gold for the decoration of the costumes of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe They sent said jewelries to adorn and decorate the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the said township, retaining for themselves, the ownership of the same When they were finished, its owners agreed that these jewels would be left with the taxpayer Pia Lavadia. She had the jewelrys custody until her death in 1882. Then, her sister Paula Lavadia succeeded her in the custody of the same. At Paula Lavadia 's death, her husband Peter Rosales, succeeded her in the care, preservation and custody of such jewelry When he died, their daughter Paz Rosales, in turn succeeded him in the jewelrys custody, preservation and care. At Paz Rosales' death, the crown and jewels passed to the custody of her husband Baldomero Cosme. After Baldomero Cosme, said jewelry passed to Manuel Soriano. He was succeeded in the custody, preservation and management of the jewelry by the defendant herein Rosario Cosme Mendoza. Every year since 1980 to date, the jewels in question were used to decorate the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Pagsanjan, and none of those who have been keeping or guarding these jewels had intended exclusive possession as owner. Feb. 9, 1938: Rosario, in her capacity as administrator of the deceased intestate Baldomero Cosme, notified all persons interested in such gems, that she would do a formal delivery of such jewelry to the Bishop of Lipa on February 12, 1938, informing them that they might witness the act of delivery (without the consent of the other co-owners) Feb. 12, 1938: Rosario and her husband did make formal delivery of the jewels, giving the document for that purpose. At this time, the original owners (6 pious ladies) have died, with the exception the plaintiff widow Dona Engracia y Lavadia Fernandez. The other plaintiffs are the heirs of Isabel, Matea and Martina Lavadia while the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her co-defendants are legitimate heirs and descendants of Paula Lavadia. Plaintiffs not in accord with such delivery designated Engracia Lavadia, one of the original owners, as recamadora plaintiff, to have in her care the crown and jewelry in question June 21, 1938: The Bishop of Lipa, knowing the problem of possession, granted the administration giving custody of such crown jewels (magulo tong fact na to, di ko matranslate) Plaintiffs then filed a case to claim the possession and custody of all the said jewelry. All these jewels are locked now and deposited in the Bank of the Philippine Islands, for it was there that Rosario Cosme had deposited the same. Defendants Allegations: o Rosario and his co-defendants do not intend to be sole owners of the said jewelry. o On the intestacy of Baldomero Cosme, they have told the Court that they never claimed such dominion of jewelry or any part thereof. However, Rosario and her predecessors have complied faithfully in performing their duties as repositories and therefore the court cannot withdraw the deposit of the jewelries LOWER COURT: Against Rosario and co-defendants o Plaintiffs are owners of said fourth-sixths of jewelry, and that the defendants are only owners of the remainder or only two sixths o The one who had a perfect right to determine who was to take charge of the jewels custody, were the plaintiffs and they entrusted such care to Engracia Lavadia, one of the primitive owners. o Rosario should deliver all of the jewels to the plaintiffs as she has been acting only as trustee and fiduciary Defendants filed an appeal, believing the court erred: o (1) in finding that the appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, and her predecessors are in the possession of the said jewels, but acted only as trustees, and fiduciaries , o (2) stating that appellees are owners of four sixths of jewelry, which for this reason, have the right to exercise the designation of the person to whom to entrust their care,

o o

(3) by failing to declare that appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, being co-owner and fiduciary of such jewelry cannot be deprived of her administration and custody, except for reasons that she is incapacitated to do so, or performs acts contrary to the will of their primitive owners, or dispose of the above jewels at will, (4) to stop claiming that Pia Lavadia and their descendants, down to Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had the custody and possession of the said jewels, have played their duties faithfully

ISSUES: 1) Whether Ramona was a depositary and therefore obligated to return the jewelries to the owners even if she is a co-owner? (YES) 2) Whether the plaintiffs constitute the majority of the co-owners and therefore can elect who has custody of the property owned in common? (YES) 3) Whether, assuming that Ramona is a depositary, the property cannot be withdrawn as she has complied faithfully in performing their duties as repository? (NO, it can be withdrawn) RATIO: 1) The contract which existed between the first owners of the jewels at issue and the first person who had their custody, was a contract of deposit. According to this contract as defined in Articles 1758 and following the Civil Code, Pia Lavadia first, and afterwards Paula Lavadia and then her descendants, one being Rosario, received and possessed, one after the other, the said jewels, only for purposes of custody or such that they must not use them for their own benefit. If it was under a deposit agreement, it is clear that to those who received the jewelry has an obligation to return them to their owners as soon as claimed by the latter. Article 1766 of the Civil Code: "The, depositary is obliged to keep the thing and restore it, when so requested, to the depositor, or his successors, or the person who has been designated in the contract. Their responsibility for the care and the loss of the thing, is governed by the provisions of title I of this book. " The restitution must be made with all the fruits and accessions of the thing deposited, if any, without it being given to the depositary who may not withhold, as Sanchez says Roman, (IV Sanchez Roman, 885), even under the pretext of obtaining compensation for other credits or compensated for expenses incurred for preservation. ROSARIO AND OTHERS: Contract is not that of a deposit because the jewels cannot be considered as belonging to other persons with respect to Rosario as she is also a co-owner as descendant of one of its early owners. SC: The first owners of the jewelry concerned who came to entrust the custody of the same to some of them, expressly reserved them to their property. Even among co-owners of a thing, one of them may be the depository, and thus it is subject to the same obligations imposed by law on all depository with respect to the conservation of the thing with the care, diligence and interest of a good father. "Joint owner. The fact that the depositary is a joint owner of the res does not alter the degree of diligence required of him." (C. J. 18, 570). 2) Appellees are owners of said fourth-sixths of jewelry, and appellants only own the remaining portion (2/6). Therefore, Engracia Lavadia must have the custody and administration of these jewels as she was entrusted by the appellees, constituting the majority of the primitive owners As there is no evidence of the contribution of the six primitive owners in the making or acquisition of the jewels often mentioned in the same proportion, the conclusion, as reasonable as it is - and this is supported by a presumption of law (Art. 393, Civil Code) is that the cost is the same and as such the portions corresponding to the participants of the community shall be presumed of an equal share. For the administration and better enjoyment of thing owned in common, according to article 398 of the Civil Code, it is mandatory that there be an agreement of the majority of the participants. 3) The deposit agreement is such that allows the depositor to withdraw from the depository, the thing deposited, any time he wanted, especially, when the latter, as in the case of Rosario Cosme Mendoza, has executed an act against the order received in trying to entrust to another's custody and administration the thing deposited, on their own without the consent of depositors or their heirs. DISPOSITIVE: Lower Court Affirmed.