Felix De los Santos, plaintiff appellee.

V Agustina Jarra, administratrix of the Estate of

Magdaleno Jimenea. (1910 case)

EMERGENCY RECIT:

De los Santos owned 10 carabaos which he lent to Jimenea to be used in his hacienda. The 10
carabaos were not returned upon de los santos’ demand. Jimenea died and Jarra was
appointed to be the administratrix of his estate. De los Santos filed for the exclusion of his
carabaos with the commissioners of Jimenea’s estate. The commissioners rejected her claim.
Jarra was contending that only 3 carabaos were given to Jimenea and afterwards these 3 were
also sold to him (jimenea). The court stated that Jarra had no basis in his claim and rendered
judgment against to him to give 6 carabaos or it’s equivalent value (120 each). Jarra appealed.
The supreme court held that there is no evidence of the sale between Jimenea and de los
Santos. Therefore it is not true.The carabaos delivered to be used were not returned by Jiminea
upon demand. There is no doubt that Jarra is under the obligation to indemnify delos Santos.

The obligation of the bailee or of his successors to return either the thing loaned or its value is
sustained by the tribunal of Spain which said in its decision. (mentioned jurisprudence): legal
doctrine touching commodatum as follows:

Although it is true that in a contract of commodatum the bailor retains the ownership of thing
loaned at the expiration of the period, or after the use for which it was loaned has been
accomplished, it is the imperative duty of the bailee to return the thing itself to its owner, or to
pay him damages if through the fault of the baileethe thing should have been lost or injured…

Torres, J.

Facts: (this is a case of appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Occidental negros)

1) Felix de los Santos brought suit against Agusitina Jarra (the administratrix of the estate
of Magdaleno Jimenea, he alleges that Jimenea borrowed and obtained from the plaintiff
10 first class carabos, to be used at the animal power mill of JImenea’s hacienda,
without recompense or remuneration for the use of it and under the sole condition that
they should be returned to the owner as soon as the work at the mill was terminated.
Jimenea however, did not return the carabaos even though de los Santos claimed their
return after the work at the mill was finished.

2) Jimenea died in 1904 (before the suit)and Jarra was appointed by the CFI as
administratrix of his estate.

3) De los Santos presented his claim to the commissioners of the estate of Jimenea for
return of the carabaos. (for the carabaos to be exluded from the estate of Jimenea). the
commissioners rejected his claim, and thus a lawsuit ensued.

4) Jarra answered and said that it was true that the late Jimenea asked the plaintiff to loan
him ten carabaos, but that he only obtained THREE (3) second-class carabaos, which
were afterwards sold by the Delos Santos to Jimenea. (basically Jarra denied all the
allegations in the complaint)

5) The case came up for trial and the court rendered judgment against Jarra and ordering
her to return to de los Santos 6 second-class and third class carabaos. The value of
which was 120 each so 720 pesos.
 6) Jarra moved for a new trial on the ground that the findings of fact were openly and
manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence.

7) Jarra needs to prove that Jimenea only received 3 second class carabaos to
substantiate her claim.

8) The record however, discloses that it has been fully proven from the testimonies of a
number of witnesses that Santos, sent in charge of various persons, the 10 carabaos
requiested by Jiminea (it was revealed that Jimenea is the father in law of de los
Santos). Also, de los Santos produced 2 letters proving that jimenea received them in
the presence of said persons (brother of Jimenea) who saw the animals arrive at the
hacienda. FOUR of the carabaos died of rinderpest and thus the judgment appealed
from only deals with 6 carabaos.

9) THE ALLEGED PURCHASE of 3 carabaos by Jimenea from his son-in-law Santos is not
evidenced by any trustworthy evidence. Therefore, it is not true.

10) From the foregoing, it may be logically inferred that the carabaos loaned or given on
commodatum to the deceased Jimenea were ten in number, that 6 survived and that
these carabaos have not been returned to the owner delos Santos, and lastly, that the 6
carabaos were not the property of the deceased nor any of his descendants, it is the
duty of the administratrix to return them or indemnify the owner for the value.

Issue: (NOT STATED EXPLICITLY) WON the carabaos belonged to the estate of Jimenea.

Held: NO. it was not part of Jimenea’s estate. Therefore Agustina Jarra should exclude it or
indemnify De los Santos… “for the reasons above set forth, by which the erros assigned to the
judgment appealed from have been refuted, and considering that the same is in accordance
with the law and the merits of the case, it is our opinion that it should be affirmed and we do
hereby affirm it with the costs against appellant.

Ratio: The ratio differentiates a loan from a commodatum.

Art 1740. (old civil code) By the contract of loan , one of the parties delivers to the other,
either anything not perishable (in the new civil code it’s consumable), in order that the
latter may use it during a certain period and return it to the former, in which case it is
called commodatum, or money or any other perishable thing, under the condition to return an
equal amount of the same kind and quality, in which case it is merely called a loan.

Commodatum is essentially gratuitous.

A simple loan may be gratuitous, or made under a stipulation to pay interest.

Art 1741. The bailor retains ownership of the thing loaned the bailee acquires the use
thereof, but not its fruits; if any compensation is involved, to be paid by the person requiring the
use, the agreement ceases to be a commodatum.

Art 1742. The obligations and rights which arise from the commodatum pass to the heirs of both
contracting parties, unless the loan has been made in consideration for the person of the bailee,
in which case his heirs shall not have the right to continue using the thing loaned.

The carabaos delivered to be used were not returned by Jiminea upon demand. There is no
doubt that Jarra is under the obligation to indemnify delos Santos.
Article 101. those who in fulfilling their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay….

The obligation of the bailee or of his successors to return either the thing loaned or its value is
sustained by the tribunal of Spain which said in its decision. (mentioned jurisprudence): legal
doctrine touching commodatum as follows:

Although it is true that in a contract of commodatum the bailor retains the ownership of
thing loaned at the expiration of the period, or after the use for which it was loaned has
been accomplished, it is the imperative duty of the bailee to return the thing itself to its
owner, or to pay him damages if through the fault of the bailee the thing should have
been lost or injured…