MARGARITA QUINTOS and ANGEL A. ANSALDO vs.

BECK
G.R. No. L-46240
November 3, 1939
FACTS:
Beck was a tenant of Quintos. Upon the novation of the contract of lease, Quintos
gratuitously granted to Beck the use of the furniture, subject to the condition that
Beck would return them to Quintos upon demand. Quintos sold the property to
Maria and Rosario Lopez and they notified Beck of the conveyance, giving him sixty
days to vacate the premises. Thereafter Quintos required Beck to return all the
furniture transferred to him. Beck refused to return 3 gas heaters and 4 electric
lamps since he would use them until the lease was due to expire. Quintos refused to
get the furniture since Beck had declined to return all of them. Beck deposited all
the furniture belonging to Quintos to the sheriff.
Quintos brought this action to compel Beck to return the furniture. She appealed
from the judgment of the CFI which ordered that the defendant return to her the
three heaters and the four electric lamps in the possession of the Sheriff, that she
call for the other furniture from the said sheriff at her own expense, and that the
fees which the Sheriff may charge for the deposit of the furniture be paid pro rata
by both parties, without pronouncement as to the costs.
ISSUE: Whether or not Beck complied with his obligation of returning the furniture
to Quintos when he deposited the furniture with the Sheriff.
HELD:
NO. The contract entered into between the parties is one of commadatum,
because under it the plaintiff gratuitously granted the use of the furniture to the
defendant, reserving for herself the ownership thereof. By this contract the
defendant bound himself to return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latters
demand. The obligation voluntarily assumed by the defendant to return the
furniture upon the plaintiff's demand, means that he should return all of
them to the plaintiff at the latter's residence or house. The defendant did not
comply with this obligation when he merely placed them at the disposal of the
plaintiff, retaining for his benefit the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps.
As the defendant had voluntarily undertaken to return all the furniture to the
plaintiff, upon the latter's demand, the Court could not legally compel her to bear
the expenses occasioned by the deposit of the furniture at the defendant's behest.
The defendant, as bailee, was not entitled to place the furniture on deposit; nor was
the plaintiff under a duty to accept the offer to return the furniture, because the
defendant wanted to retain the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps.
The defendant was the one who breached the contract of commodatum, and
without any reason he refused to return and deliver all the furniture upon the

plaintiff's demand. In these circumstances, it is just and equitable that he pays the
legal expenses and other judicial costs which the plaintiff would not have otherwise
defrayed.