GR No.

L-47996 May 9, 1941

ENGRACIA LAVADIA AND OTHERS, plaintiffs and appeals, vs. ROSARIO COSME DE MENDOZA AND OTHERS, defendants and
appellants.

DIAZ, J .:

The object of litigation between the plaintiffs and the defendants in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, were the possession
and custody of certain jewels that some six pious ladies of the municipality of Pagsanjan, Laguna, called Martina, Matea, Isabel,
Paula, Pia and Engracia surnamed all Lavadia, they had sent to make 1880, with their own money, to adorn and decorate with
them the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patron of the mentioned municipality, retaining them for themselves, their ownership
not ceasing but only their use to the referred Image, for the indicated purpose. The plaintiffs and the defendants, with the
exception of Engracia Lavadia, which was one of the six, are descendants of the other five primitive owners of the jewels in
question. Because the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza who is one of the descendants of Paula Lavadia, who ultimately
had custody of those, wanted to hand over the crown that was part of them, to the Catholic Bishop of Lipa, to have her in her
possession but 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 Lavadia, Matea Lavadia and Martina Lavadia), Engracia Lavadia who are the plaintiffs, promoted this
cause in the Court of its origin, to claim the possession and custody of all the aforementioned jewelry. These are none other than
those described in paragraph 3 of the lawsuit. to have it in his possession but 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 Lavadia, Matea Lavadia and Martina
Lavadia), Engracia Lavadia who are the plaintiffs , they promoted this case in the Court of their origin, to claim the possession
and custody of all the aforementioned jewelry. These are none other than those described in paragraph 3 of the lawsuit. to have
it in his possession but 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 Lavadia, Matea Lavadia and Martina Lavadia), Engracia Lavadia who are the plaintiffs , they
promoted this case in the Court of their origin, to claim the possession and custody of all the aforementioned jewelry. These are
none other than those described in paragraph 3 of the lawsuit.

The Court decided the case against the defendants, declaring that the plaintiffs owning four sixths were unimportant of the
jewels subject to question, and the defendants, of two sixths only, those had perfect right to determine who should take care of
their custody; and that, having decided to entrust this is to Engracia Lavadia, one of the primitive owners, ordered that the
defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza deliver all of them to said plaintiff. Against this decision of the Court, the defendants filed
an appeal, believing that the Court erred (1) in declaring that the appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, and his antigresors in
the possession of the aforementioned jewels, acted only as depositories, and not fiduciaries ; (2) by declaring that the appellants
own four-sixths of those, and that they are responsible for said reason to exercise the right to designate the person to whom they
entrust their custody; (3) by declaring that the appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, being a co-owner and fiduciary of said
jewels, cannot be deprived of her administration and custody, except for reasons that incapacitate her to do so, which are to
execute acts contrary to the willingness of its primitive owners, and to dispose of the aforementioned jewelry at will; (4) by
declaring that Pia Lavadia and his descendants, until arriving at Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had custody and
possession of the aforementioned jewels, have faithfully performed their duties; and finally (5) by denying your request for a new
hearing. and that they are responsible for such reason to exercise the right to designate the person to whom they entrust their
sucustodia; (3) by declaring that the appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, being a co-owner and fiduciary of said jewels,
cannot be deprived of her administration and custody, except for reasons that incapacitate her to do so, which are to execute
acts contrary to the willingness of its primitive owners, and to dispose of the aforementioned jewelry at will; (4) by declaring that
Pia Lavadia and his descendants, until arriving at Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had custody and possession of the
aforementioned jewels, have faithfully performed their duties; and finally (5) by denying your request for a new hearing. and that
they are responsible for such reason to exercise the right to designate the person to whom they entrust their sucustodia; (3) by
declaring that the appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, being a co-owner and fiduciary of said jewels, cannot be deprived of
her administration and custody, except for reasons that incapacitate her to do so, which are to execute acts contrary to the
willingness of its primitive owners, and to dispose of the aforementioned jewelry at will; (4) by declaring that Pia Lavadia and his
descendants, until arriving at Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had custody and possession of the aforementioned jewels,
have faithfully performed their duties; and finally (5) by denying your request for a new hearing. (3) by declaring that the
appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, being a co-owner and fiduciary of said jewels, cannot be deprived of her administration
and custody, except for reasons that incapacitate her to do so, which are to execute acts contrary to the willingness of its
primitive owners, and to dispose of the aforementioned jewelry at will; (4) by declaring that Pia Lavadia and his descendants,
until arriving at Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had custody and possession of the aforementioned jewels, have faithfully
performed their duties; and finally (5) by denying your request for a new hearing. (3) by declaring that the appellant Rosario
Cosme de Mendoza, being a co-owner and fiduciary of said jewels, cannot be deprived of her administration and custody,
except for reasons that incapacitate her to do so, which are to execute acts contrary to the willingness of its primitive owners,
and to dispose of the aforementioned jewelry at will; (4) by declaring that Pia Lavadia and his descendants, until arriving at
Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had custody and possession of the aforementioned jewels, have faithfully performed their
duties; and finally (5) by denying your request for a new hearing. which are to execute acts contrary to the will of their primitive
owners, and to dispose of the aforementioned jewelry at will; (4) by declaring that Pia Lavadia and his descendants, until arriving
at Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had custody and possession of the aforementioned jewels, have faithfully performed
their duties; and finally (5) by denying your request for a new hearing. which are to execute acts contrary to the will of their
primitive owners, and to dispose of the aforementioned jewelry at will; (4) by declaring that Pia Lavadia and his descendants,
until arriving at Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had custody and possession of the aforementioned jewels, have faithfully
performed their duties; and finally (5) by denying your request for a new hearing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual
law library

To get a full picture of the facts, expongamoslos then following the story of the same makes the court a quo in its decision
appealed because not discuss neither the appellants nor the appellees:

The object of the cause are the jewels of the image of the Virgin of Our Lady of Guadalupe, in the municipality of Pagsanjan,
Laguna, and consist of a gold crown embedded with diamonds and diamonds, a diamonds and diamonds choker, a belt also
embedded with diamonds and diamonds, a gold necklace also completely encrusted with diamonds, a gold bracelet
embedded with diamonds and diamonds, a golden silver plate where the above-mentioned jewels are placed, and other
various pieces of gold or of golden silver for the decoration of the clothing of this image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. All of these
jewels are currently locked up at the Bank of the Philippine Islands because the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza had
deposited them there.

The crown and the jewels described above were made around 1880 at the expense of six ladies residents of the municipality of
Pagsanjan, Laguna. They were the sisters Paula Lavadia and Pia Lavadia, the sisters Martina Lavadia and Matea Lavadia, and
the sisters Isabel Lavadia and Engracia Lavadia. These ladies contributed jewelry that they had for the preparation of the crown
and with them the jewels described above were made, also contributing the money with which they were made. All these ladies
and they have passed away, with the exception of the plaintiff Mrs. Engracia Lavadia Vda. Fernandez's The other plaintiffs are
the legal heirs of Isabel Lavadia, Matea Lavadia and Martina Lavadia, while the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her
co-defendants are legitimate heirs and descendants of Paula Lavadia.

The crown and jewels were ordered to be made for the use of the owner of the municipality of Pagasanjan, Ntra.Sra. from
Guadalupe. When they had finished making, their owners agreed that these jewels would stay with the taxpayer Pia Lavadia.
She had these jewels in her custody until her death in 1882, when her sister Paula Lavadia succeeded her in their custody. On the
death of Paula Lavadia, of the care, preservation and custody of said jewels, Pedro Rosales, and his son, Paz Rosales, died, in
turn he succeeded in said custody, conservation and care. Upon the death of Paz Rosales, the crown and jewels were taken to
the custody of her husband Baldomero Cosme. After Baldomero Cosme, these jewels passed to Manuel Soriano who, in turn,
was succeeded in custody, conservation and administration by the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza. Every year from
1880 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 to possess them as an exclusive owner. The defendant
Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her co-defendants do not claim to own the aforementioned jewelry. Indeed, in the intestate of
the late Baldomero Cosme, special action No. 5494 of this Court of First Instance, said defendant and his co-defendants have
told the Court that they have never had claims to claim the domain of said jewels or any part of the same. ( 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 those jewels had intended to possess them as an exclusive owner. The defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and
her co-defendants do not claim to own the aforementioned jewelry. Indeed, in the intestate of the late Baldomero Cosme,
special action No. 5494 of this Court of First Instance, said defendant and his co-defendants have told the Court that they have
never had claims to claim the domain of said jewels or any part of the same. ( 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 those jewels had
intended to possess them as an exclusive owner. The defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her co-defendants do not
claim to own the aforementioned jewelry. Indeed, in the intestate of the late Baldomero Cosme, special action No. 5494 of this
Court of First Instance, said defendant and his co-defendants have told the Court that they have never had claims to claim the
domain of said jewels or any part of the same. ( The defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her co-defendants do not
claim to own the aforementioned jewelry. Indeed, in the intestate of the late Baldomero Cosme, special action No. 5494 of this
Court of First Instance, said defendant and his co-defendants have told the Court that they have never had claims to claim the
domain of said jewels or any part of the same. ( The defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her co-defendants do not
claim to own the aforementioned jewelry. Indeed, in the intestate of the late Baldomero Cosme, special action No. 5494 of this
Court of First Instance, said defendant and his co-defendants have told the Court that they have never had claims to claim the
domain of said jewels or any part of the same. (See Exhibits B-2 by B-3.)

On February 9, 1938, the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, in her capacity as administrator of the intestate of the late
Baldomero Cosme, notified all persons interested in said jewels that she wanted to formally deliver said jewels to Mr. Bishop of
Lina on Next Saturday, that is, on February 12, 1938, informing them to witness the act of delivery ( SeeI display 4). Indeed, on
February 12, 1938, the defendant and her husband made formal delivery of the jewels, granting the corresponding document
for that purpose, a document that was presented as Exhibit E of the plaintiffs and 2 of the defendants. Not being the plaintiffs
satisfied with this delivery, about six people and the plaintiffs in this case granted a document, designating the plaintiff Engracia
Lavadia as a collector, who would take care of the crown and the jewelry in question ( SeeI exhibit 3). Having raised the
question of who should have the crown and jewels in question in their custody, and having come to the knowledge of the Bishop
of Lipa, this, in turn, on June 21, 1938, granted a deed waiving custody and administration of said crown and jewelry ( See Exhibit
D of the plaintiffs and 1 of the defendants).

Based on the facts reported, the Court declared that the contract between the primitive owners of the jewels in dispute and the
first of them that had custody of them, was the deposit, as this contract is finalized in articles 1758 and following of the Civil
Code. Pia Lavadia first, and then Paula Lavadia and the descendants of the latter being one of them the appellant Rosario
Cosme Mendoza, received and possessed, one after the other, those referred, only for custody purposes; Well, as the Court
emphasizes in its decision, neither those nor the latter used them for their own benefit. If it was by virtue of a deposit agreement
that the jewels received were first received by Pia and Paula, and then by the descendants of the latter including the appellant
Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, it is clear that there is an obligation on the part of the latter to return them to their owners as soon
as they claim them. This is stated in article 1766 of the Civil Code that says:

The depositary is obliged to keep the thing and rescind it, when requested, to the depositor, or to his or her causes, or to the
person who had been designated in the contract. Your responsibility regarding the guard and the loss of the thing, will be
governed by the provisions of the tit. I of this book.

The restitution must be made with all the fruits and accessions of the deposited thing, if it has them, without being given to the
depositary to retain it, as Sanchez Roman comments, (IV Sanchez Roman, 885), even under the pretext of obtaining
compensation of other credits or to compensate for expenses made for their conservation.

The primitavas owners of the jewels in question, agreed to entrust the custody of them to some of them, reserving themselves for
their property. This goes to show that the appellants' theory that the contract they had is not a deposit because after all, as they
say, the jewels cannot be considered as belonging to others with respect to Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, because she
descends of one of its first owners, it has no strength, because even among commoners of one thing, one of them can be a
depositary, and when it is, it is subject to the same obligations imposed by the law on any depositary, 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. (18 CJ,
570).

The appeals are descendants and legal heirs of Isabel Lavadia, Matea Lavadia and Martina Lavadia; and Engracia Lavadia,
whom they appointed to take over the custody of the jewels subject to question, is one of the primitive owners of them; and the
appellants are in turn the descendants and heirs of Pia Lavadia and PaulaLavadia. Not showing anywhere due to the six
primitive owners did not contribute to the making or acquisition of the jewelry so many times mentioned, in the same proportion,
the most reasonable conclusion is - and this is sustained by a presumption of law, (Art, 393, Civil Code ) -, that all of them
apportioned the coast of the same paying each one, an equal fee. If this is true, then we must accept the Court's conclusion
that the appellants own four sixths of said jewelry, and that the appellants are not but only of the two remaining sixth parties.
Therefore, having decided most of the appeals, entrust the custody and administration of these jewels to be able to faithfully
comply with the will of their primitive owners, the appealed Engracia Lavadia, the only survivor of the same, their decision must
be respected, because for the administration and better enjoyment of the common thing, according to article 398 of the Civil
Code, the agreements of the majority of the participants are mandatory.

The argument that Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and his predecessors have been faithfully performing their duties as depositaries,
does not argue in favor of the proposition that the deposit should not be withdrawn, because the deposit contract is such that it
allows the depositor to withdraw from the depositary the thing deposited, at any time you would like, especially when the last
one, as in the case of Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, has executed an act contrary to the order received, entrusting or trying to
entrust another, the custody and administration of the deposited thing, on its own account and without the consent of the
depositors or their heirs. Having found no error in the decision appealed from the Court a quo , hereby confirm it , condemning
the appellants to pay the costs. That's how it is ordered.