REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
JOSE V. BAGTAS, defendant,
FELICIDAD M. BAGTAS, Administratrix of the Intestate Estate left by the late Jose V. Bagtas,
petitioner-appellant.

G.R. No. L-17474            October 25, 1962

Facts: Jose Bagtas borrowed three bulls from the Bureau of Animal Industry for a period of one year
from May 8, 1948 to May 7, 1949 for breeding purposes. When the contract expired, the borrower asked
for a renewal for another year but the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources approved the
renewal of one bull only. Bagtas wrote to the Director of Animal Industry that he would pay the value of
the three bulls with a deduction of yearly depreciation to be approved by the Auditor General. The
Director of Animal Industry advised him that the book value of the three bulls could not be reduced and
that they either be returned or their book value paid. Bagtas failed to pay the book value of the three
bulls or to return them. The Republic of the Philippines commenced an action against him ordering to
return the three bulls or to pay their book value. After hearing, the trial Court ruled in favor of the
Republic, as such, the Republic moved ex parte for a writ of execution which the court granted. Felicidad
Bagtas, the surviving spouse and administrator of Bagtas’ estate, returned the two bulls and filed a
motion to quash the writ of execution since one bull cannot be returned for it was killed by gunshot
during a Huk raid. The Court denied her motion hence, this appeal certified by the Court of Appeals
because only questions of law are raised

Issue: Whether or not the contract was commodatum; thus, Bagtas be held liable for its loss due to force
majeure. 

Ruling: A contract of commodatum is essentially gratuitous. Supreme Court held that Bagtas was liable
for the loss of the bull even though it was caused by a fortuitous event.

If the contract was one of lease, then the 10% breeding charge is compensation (rent) for the use of the
bull and Bagtas, as lessee, is subject to the responsibilities of a possessor. He is also in bad faith because
he continued to possess the bull even though the term of the contract has already expired.

If the contract was one of commodatum, he is still liable because: (1) he kept the bull longer than the
period stipulated; and (2) the thing loaned has been delivered with appraisal of its value (10%). No
stipulation that in case of loss of the bull due to fortuitous event the late husband of the appellant
would be exempt from liability.

The original period of the loan was from 8 May 1948 to 7 May 1949. The loan of one bull was renewed
for another period of one year to end on 8 May 1950. But the appellant kept and used the bull until
November 1953 when during a Huk raid it was killed by stray bullets. 

Furthermore, when lent and delivered to the deceased husband of the appellant the bulls had each an
appraised book value, to with: the Sindhi, at P1,176.46, the Bhagnari at P1,320.56 and the Sahiniwal
at P744.46. It was not stipulated that in case of loss of the bull due to fortuitous event the late
husband of the appellant would be exempt from liability.