UP Law F2021 Republic v.

Bagtas
Credit Transactions Commodatum, Liability 1962 Padilla
for Loss, Art. 1942

SUMMARY

Jose Bagtas borrowed 3 bulls from RP for breeding purposes. RP delivered 3 bulls with appraisal of the
values along with charge for breeding fee and stipulated period. Jose failed to return 1 bull to RP due to
being shot during a Huk raid. Bagtas claims no liability for the killed bull since it was due to force majeure
and that RP, as the owner of the bull, suffers the loss since it was a contract of commodatum. SC: It was a
lease (breeding fee as compensation) but even if commodatum, Art 1942 of the NCC provides that the bailee
(Bagtas) is liable for the loss of the thing even if through a fortuitous if he keeps it longer than stipulated
and if there was appraisal on delivery with no stipulation for exemption.

FACTS

▪ On 8/May/1948, Jose Bagtas (defendant) borrowed from RP/Bureau of Animal Industry 3 bulls:
Sindhi (P1,176.46), Bhagnari (P1,320.56) and Sahiniwal (P744.46) for 1 year, for breeding purposes.
▪ Upon the expiration of 1 year, on 7/May/1949, Jose asked for renewal of another period of 1 year.
▪ However, the Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved a renewal of only on one bull for
another year and requested the return of the 2 bulls.
▪ On 25/Mar/1950, Jose wrote to the Director of Animal Industry that he will pay the value of the 3
bulls, and later on reiterated his desire to buy them but with deduction of yearly depreciation.
▪ On 19/Oct/1950, the Director of Animal Industry advised Jose that the value of the bulls cannot be
reduced and that he should return them or pay for their value not later than 31/Oct/1950
▪ Jose failed to return them or pay for them by 31/Oct/1950 so the RP commenced an action against
Jose on 20/Dec/1950 in the CFI Manila for the return of the bulls or payment of their value total of
P3,241.45 and unpaid breeding fee of P499.62 both with interests and costs.
▪ On 23/Oct/1951, Jose died, Felicidad Bagtas (spouse) became the admnistratrix of his estate.
▪ CFI sentenced Jose, on 30/Jul/1956, to pay the total value of the bulls P3,625.09 and breeding fees
P626.17 with interest on both sums at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint and costs. RP
moved ex parte for a writ of execution on 9/Oct/1958.
▪ On 7/Jan/1959, Felicidad filed a motion alleging that on 26/Jun/1952, 2 bulls were returned to the
Bureau of Animal Industry and that sometime in Nov/1953, the third bull died from gunshot wounds
inflicted during a Huks raid on Hacienda Felicidad Intal. She prayed that the writ of execution be
quashed and that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued.
▪ CFI denied Felicidad’s motion. She appealed to the CA, which sent the case to the SC (question of law)

RATIO

W/N Bagtas is liable for the loss of the bull due to force majeure
Yes. Bagtas contends that the contract was that of commodatum and since RP retained ownership or the
title to the bull, RP should suffer the loss due to force majeure (Huk raid). However, if the breeding fee of
10% is to be considered as compensation, then the contract would be a LEASE (Commodatum in contrast is
essentially gratuitous). Under Art 1671 of the NCC, the lessee (Bagtas) would be subject to the
responsibilities of a possessor in BF, because Bagtas continued the possession after expiry of the contract.

Even if it is considered to be a commodatum, Bagtas is still liable because Art 1942 of the NCC states: The
bailee is liable for the loss of the thing, even if it should be through a fortuitous event: xxx (2) If he keeps it
longer than the period stipulated … ; (3) If the thing loaned has been delivered with appraisal of its value,
unless there is a stipulation exempting the bailee from responsibility in case of a fortuitous event; xxx

Bagtas kept the bulls for a longer period than stipulated (kept 1 bull until Nov/1953 – killed by bullets) and,
there was an appraisal of the value upon elivery with no stipulation that in case of loss that Bagtas would be
exempt from liability.
Since Bagtas returned 2 of the bulls already, the estate of Jose is only liable for the value of the bull not
returned because it was killed while in the custody of Felicidad (P859.63 as amount prayed for by RP). This
judgment cannot be enforced by means of a writ of execution but must be presented to the probate court
for payment by the administratrix, Felicidad.

FALLO

ACCORDINGLY, the writ of execution appealed from is set aside, without pronouncement as to costs.