REPUBLIC V BAGTAS 1.

If the breeding fee was considered as compensation, then the contract would
No. L-17474 | October 25, 1962 | Padilla, J. be a lease of the bull.
 Art 1671, CC: Lessee would be subject to the responsibilities of a
Facts possessor in bad faith because she continued possession of the bull
 May 8, 1948: Respondent Jose Bagtas borrowed from petitioner Republic of after the expiry of the contract.
the Philippines, through the Bureau of Animal Industry, 3 bulls: 2. Even if the contract is of commodatum, the appellant is still liable.
o Red Sindhi with a book value of P1,176.46  Contract of commodatum – essentially gratuitous
o Bhagnari with a book value of P1,320.56  Art 1942, CC: Bailee in a contract of commodatum is liable for the loss
o Sahiniwal with a book value of P744.46 of things, even if it be through a fortuitous event.
 This was for a period of 1 year (May 8, 1948 to May 7, 1949) for breeding
purposes, subject to a government charge of breeding fee of 10% of the book  IN THIS CASE: The period of the loan ended on May 8, 1950, but respondent
value of the bulls. kept and used the bull until November 1953, when it was killed during a Huk
 After the contract expired, Jose asked for a renewal for another period of one raid by stray bullets.
year, but the Sec of Agriculture and Natural Resources only approved renewal o Also, it wasn’t stipulated when the bulls were lent and delivered, that, in
of only one bull. (May 8, 1949 to May 7, 1950) case of loss due to FE, Jose would be exempt from liability.
o The secretary requested for the return of the other 2 bulls.  BUT: Since special proceedings for the administration and settlement of
 March 25, 1950: Respondent Jose Bagtas wrote to the Director of Animal estate of the deceased Jose has been instituted at the CFI, the money
Industry saying that he wished to buy the 3 bulls. judgment rendered in favor of petitioner cannot be enforced by means of a
 October 17, 1950: He reiterated his desire to buy the 3 bulls at a value with writ of execution.
a deduction of yearly depreciation. o It must be presented to the probate court for payment by the respondent.
o The Director replied 2 days later advising him that the value of the 3
bulls cannot be reduced. They were to be returned or their book Ruling: Writ of execution appealed from is SET ASIDE
value paid not later than October 31, 1950.
 Respondent Jose failed to pay the book value.
 December 20, 1950: Petitioner Republic filed an action against Jose Bagtas
praying that:
o He be ordered to return the 3 bulls loaned OR
o Pay their book value (total sum of P3,241.45) and the unpaid
breeding fee (P199.62), both with interests
 July 30, 1956: CFI: For petitioner
o Respondent Jose to pay the sum of P3,625.09 (total value) plus the
breeding fees (P626.17)
 October 9, 1958: Petitioner moved ex parte for a writ of execution
o Granted
 January 7, 1959: Respondent Felicidad Bagtas, the surviving spouse of Jose
(who died in 1951) and administratix of his estate, filed a motion alleging:
o The 2 bulls (Sindhi and Bhagnari) were returned to the Bureau in
1952 and
o The 3rd bull (Sahiniwal) died from gunshot wounds inflicted during a
Huk raid on Hacienda Felicidad Intal
 Such was due to a force majeure therefore she is relieved
from the duty of returning the bull or paying its value
 CFI: Denied
 Respondent’s argument: Contract was commodaturm therefore peititoner
retained ownership or title to the bull it should suffer its loss due to force
majeure

Issue: WN respondent is relieved from paying the loan – NO

Ratio