(rough translation by A.

Cruz, 21 September 2014)

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
GR No. L-47996 May 9 1941
ENGRACIA LAVADIA et al, plaintiffs and appellees,
vs. ROSARIO COSME y MENDOZA, defendants and appellants.
Messrs. L. Aurelio Fernandez Palileo Lavadia and in representation of the appellees.
Messrs. Ortega and Ortega in representation of the appellants.
DIAZ, J. :
Subject of dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants in the Court of First Instance of Laguna,
was the possession and custody of certain jewelry that six pious ladies of the town of Pagsanjan, Laguna,
named Martina, Matea, Isabel, Paula, Pia and Engracia all surnamed Lavadia, owned and had sent to the
confeccionar in 1880 to decorate with them and adorn the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness
of the said town, said jewelry to be retained by them as their property and to be used only for the said
purpose. The plaintiffs and the defendants, except for Engracia Lavadia, are descendants of the other
five previous owners of the vessels in question. Defendant Rosario Cosme Mendoza, a descendant of
Paula Lavadia, who then had custody of the Image, stated that she would sign over the crown, which
constituted part of the same, to the possession of the Catholic Bishop of Lipa, subject to the use of the
Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, according to the will of their owners. The descendants of the three,
(Isabel, Matea and Martina Lavadia) and Engracia Lavadia, plaintiffs herein, instituted the case in the
Court of origin, to claim possession and custody of said jewelry. These are none other than those
described in paragraph 3 of the application.
The Court decided the case against the defendant, declaring that the plaintiffs still collectively owned a
four sixths share in the jewelry in question, while defendants had only a right to disposition and custody
over two sixths part in the total share; and that, the parties having decided to entrust such action to
Engracia Lavadia, one of the original owners, defendant Rosario Cosme Mendoza is ordered to make
delivery of such share to the aforementioned. Defendant appealed this Decision of the Court, believing
it erred: (1) in finding that appellant herein Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, through her predecessor, in the
possession of the said jewels, held such as a trustee and not as a fiduciary; (2) stating that appellees are
owners four sixths of those, and for that reason argue that they may exercise their right to designate to
whom to custody of such shall be entrusted; (3) by failing to declare the appellant Rosario Cosme
Mendoza, being co-owner and trustee of such jewelry, cannot be deprived of her administration and
custody, except for reasons that incapacitate or disqualify her, which would be to act contrary to the will
of the original owners, and to dispose of the said jewels; (4) in refuting that Pia Lavadia and her
descendants up to Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had custody and possession of said jewels,
have faithfully performed their duties; and finally (5) by denying her request for a new hearing.
To get a complete picture of the facts, see below, following the story of the court a quo that rendered
the Decision appealed from, as not discussed by neither the appellants nor the appellees:
The object of the case are the jewels of the image of Our Lady Seora De Guadalupe, from the
town of Pagsanjan, Laguna, consisting of a golden crown encrusted with jewels and gems, a
necklace of jewels and gems, and also a belt embedded with bright jewels, a gold necklace also
completely embedded with gems, a gold bracelet encrusted with jewels and gems, a sterling
silver plate with jewels placed on top, and other coin pieces made of gold and silver gilt for the
decoration of the costumes of the image of Our Lady Seora Guadalupe. All these gems are
currently lock deposited in the Bank of the Philippine Islands through defendant Rosario Cosme
de Mendoza.
The crown and jewels described above were made in the 1880s at the expense of six pious
ladies who were then residents of Pagsanjan, Laguna. They were: sisters Pia and Paula Lavadia,
sisters Martina and Matea Lavadia, and sisters Isabel and Engracia Lavadia. These ladies
contributed the jewelry that they owned to the crafting of the crown as described above, also
contributing money to answer for the cost in having them crafted. These ladies have all died,
with the exception of the applicant Doa Engracia Lavadia Vda. de Fernandez. The other
plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Isabel Lavadia, Matea Lavadia and Martina Lavadia while the
defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and his co-defendants are legitimate heirs and
descendants of Paula Lavadia.
The crown jewels were ordered to be used by the patron of the Pagasanjan Township, Our Lady
of Guadalupe. Upon completion of its crafting, its owners agreed that these jewels would be left
with Pia Lavadia. The jewels were in her custody until her death in 1882, when her sister Paula
Lavadia succeeded her in the custody of the same. Upon the death of Paula Lavadia, the care,
custody and preservation of these jewels was left to her husband Pedro Rosales, and upon his
death, their daughter Paz Rosales succeeded in the custody, preservation and care of the same.
On the death of Paz Rosales, the crown jewels passed to the custody of her husband Baldomero
Cosme. After Baldomero Cosme, these jewels went to Manuel Soriano, who in turn was
succeeded in its custody, preservation and management by the defendant herein Rosario Cosme
y Mendoza. Every year since 1880 to date, the jewels in question were used to decorate the
image of Our Lady Seora Guadalupe in Pagsanjan, and for no other purpose as far as those who
have come in possession or have taken care of it are concerned. The defendant Rosario Cosme
de Mendoza and his co-defendants in fact do not claim to be the sole owners of the said
jewelry. Indeed, during the intestacy proceedings of the deceased Baldomero Cosme, Special
Action No. 5494 of this District Court, said defendant and his co-defendants have told the Court
that they have never had pretensions to claim domain over such jewelry or any part of the
same. (See Exhibitos by B-2 B-3.)
On February 9, 1938, the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, in her capacity as
administrator of the deceased intestate estate of Baldomero Cosme, notified all persons
interested in such jewels that she wanted to make a formal delivery of such jewelry to the
Bishop of Lipa next Saturday, February 12, 1938, advising them so that they might witness the
act of delivery (See Exhibit 4). Indeed, on February 12, 1938, the defendant and her husband
made a formal delivery of the jewels, instituting a document to that effect, hereby submitted as
Exhibit E of the plaintiffs and the two defendants. The applicants, who did not concur with such
delivery, manifested a written form which then designated the applicant Engracia Lavadia as
Recamadora, who would have in her care the crown jewels in question (See Exhibito 3). Having
raised the question of who should have custody over the crown jewels in question, and having
made this fact known to the Bishop of Lipa, on June 21, 1938, an action for the granting of a
deed relinquishing custody and administration of these crown jewels was instituted (see
Exhibito D of the plaintiffs and defendants 1).
Based on the facts, the court stated that the contract which existed between the original owners of the
vessels at issue and the ones who are now with custody of them, was a deposit, as can be gleamed from
the contract, following Articles 1758 of the Civil Code. Pia Lavadia, followed by Paula Lavadia and her
descendants, including appellant Rosario Cosme Mendoza, received and possessed, one after the other,
the aforementioned, only for purposes of custody; as the Court emphasizes in its decision, none of them
used such for their own benefit. If the jewels received were indeed the subject matter of a contract of
deposit, first by Pia and Paula, and then by the descendants of the latter including the appellant Rosario
Cosme Mendoza, it is clear that there is an obligation to their part to return them to their owners as
soon as demand is made. The article also features 1766 of the Civil Code which states:
The depositary is obliged to keep the thing and to return it, when so requested, to the
depositor, or his successors in interest, or a person who has been designated in the contract. His
responsibility for the care and the loss of the thing, shall be 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, and cannot
be withheld by the depositary, as said Sanchez Roman, (IV Sanchez Roman, 885), even if the purpose is
to obtain compensation for other credits or to be compensated for expenses incurred for preservation.
The original owners of the vessels in question, agreed to entrust the custody of the same to some of
them, expressly reserving their ownership over their property. It follows that the theory of the
appellants that the contract was not that of a deposit after all, as they claim, cannot be considered as
the jewels belong to other persons; even with respect to Rosario Cosme Mendoza, a descendant of one
of the original owners, such claim will still not lie, because even among co-owners of one thing, one of
them can also be the depositary, and when such is the case, he 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 parent.
Joint owner . The fact That the depositary is a joint owner of the res does not alter the degree of
diligence required of him.(CJ 18, 570).
Appellees are descendants and legal heirs of Isabel Lavadia, Matea and Martina Lavadia; and Engracia
Lavadia, who was appointed to take over custody of the jewels, is one of the original owners of the
same; and the appellants are themselves the descendants and heirs of Pia and Paula Lavadia. If no
record exists anywhere that the six original owners have not contributed in the making or acquisition of
subject jewels other than that so often mentioned in the stated proportion, the most reasonable
conclusion is -- and this supported by law (Art, 393, Civil Code) each of them is apportioned an equal
share in the cost. If this is true, then we must accept the conclusion of the Court that appellees are
owners of four sixths of the jewelry, and that the appellants entitled to but only the remaining two
sixths. Consequently, since majority of the appellees decided to entrust to Engracia Lavadia, the only
survivor among the original owners, the custody and administration of these jewels, to faithfully comply
with the will of their original owners, this decision must respected, because the administration and
better enjoyment of the thing common, according to article 398 of the Civil Code, derives from the
mandatory agreements decided by most of the partakers.
The argument that Rosario Cosme Mendoza and her predecessors have been serving faithfully their
duties as trustees, does not further support the proposition that We should not withdraw the deposit
because the deposit agreement is such that allows the depositor to withdraw from the depositary the
thing deposited at any time he so wishes, especially when the latter, as in the case of Rosario Cosme de
Mendoza, has executed an act contrary to established customs, as she sought to transfer or convey to
another the custody and administration of the thing deposited, on her own and without the consent of
depositors or their heirs.
Having found no error in the appealed decision of the court a quo, hereby, confirm it, ordering
appellants to pay the costs. So ordered.
Imperial, Laurel, and Horrilleno Moran, MM., concur.