Credit Case Digest

1.

CATHO THOLIC VI VICAR AP APOSTOL TOLIC VS VS. CA CA G.R. NO. 80294-95/Sept. 21, 1988/J. Gana!"

#at$% •

•

•

•

•

•

 The whole controversy started when the herein petitioner petitioner fled an application or registration o lands 1, 2, 3 and 4 in La Trinidad, Benguet on Septemer !, 1"#2$  The heirs o %uan %uan &alde' &alde' and the the heirs o (gmidio (gmidio )ctaviano )ctaviano fled an an opposition opposition on lots 2 and 3, respectively$ )n *ovemer 1+, 1"#!, the land registration court confrmed the registrale title o the petitioner$ )n appeal y the private respondent heirs, the ourt o -ppeals reversed the decision and cancelled &icar.s title or lots 2 and 3$  The heirs fled a motion or reconsideration, reconsideration, praying that the lots e ordered ordered registered registered under their names$ The ourt o -ppeals denied the motion or lac/ o  su0cient merit$ Both parties then came eore the Supreme ourt, however, the S, in a minute resolution, denied oth petitions$ The heirs then fled cases or the recovery and possession o the lots$ uring trial, &icar contended contended that it has een in possession o the suect s uect lots or +! years continuously and peaceully and has constructed permanent structures thereon$ )n the other hand, respondents argue that the petitioner is arred rom setting up the deense o ownership or long and continuous possession y the prior  udgment o o the ourt o -ppeals -ppeals under under the principle principle o res res udicata$ udicata$

I$$&e

%$ether &icar had een in possession o the suect lots merely as aileeorrower in commodatum, a gratuitous loan or use$ He'(%

5rivate respondents were ale to prove that their predecessors6 house was orrowed y petitioner petitioner &icar &icar ater ater the church and the convent were destroy destroyed$ ed$ They never never as/ed or the return o the house, ut when they allowed its ree use, they ecame ailors in commodatum commodatum and the petitioner petitioner the ailee$ The ailees6 ailure ailure to return the suect matter o commodatum to the ailor did not mean adverse possession on the part o the orrower$ The ailee held in trust the property suect matter o  commodatum$ commodatum$ The adverse claim claim o petitioner came came only in 1"!1 when when it declared declared the lots or ta7ation purposes$ purposes$ The action o petitioner petitioner &icar y such adverse adverse claim could not ripen into title y way o ordinary ac8uisitive prescription ecause o the asence o ust title$

2.

R)P*+L P*+LIIC VS. JOS) OS) V. +AGTAS G.R. NO. L-144/Ot. 25, 192/J. Pa(''a

#at$% •

•

•

•

)n 9ay :, 1"4:, %ose Bagtas orrowed rom the Bureau o -nimal ;ndustry 3 ulls or 1 year or reeding purposes, suect to reeding ee or 1pon the e7piration o the contract, Bagtas as/ed or a renewal or another year$  The renewal renewal granted was only or 1 ull$ Bagtas o?ered o?ered to uy the ulls at its oo/ value less depreciation, ut the Bureau told him that he should either return the ulls or uy it at oo/ value$ Bagtas ailed to pay the oo/ value, and so the @epulic commenced an action with the A; 9anila to order the return o the ulls or the payment o its oo/ value$ uring trial, %ose Bagtas died and his wie, Aeliciana Bagtas, having succeeded and appointed as the administrati7 o his estate, proved that two o the ulls have already een returned returned in 1"!2, and that the remaining remaining one died o gunshot during a u/ raid, thus, their oligation have already een e7tinguished since the contract is a commodatum, hence, the loss through ortuitous event should e orne y the owner$ owner$

I$$&e%

hether, depending on the nature o the contract, the respondent is liale or the death o the ull$ He'(%

 Ces$  Ces$ ommodatum ommodatum is essentially gratuitous$ owever, in this case, there is a 1nder -rticle -rticle 1#+1 o the ivil ivil ode, the lessee is is liale as possessor possessor in ad aith ecause he had continuous possession o the ull even ater the e7piry o  the contra contract$ ct$ -nd even even i the contr contract act e a comm commodat odatum, um, Bagtas Bagtas is still still liale liale eca ecaus use e -rt$ -rt$ 1"42 1"42 o the the ivi ivill ode ode prov provid ides es that that a ail ailee ee in a cont contra ract ct o  commodatum is liale or loss o the thing even i it should e through a ortuitous eventD i he /eeps it longer than the period stipulatedD and i the thing loaned has een delivered with appraisal value, unless there is a stipulation e7empting the ailee rom responsiility in case o a ortuitous event$

. SA*RA IPORT  )PORT CO. VS. 3+P G.R. NO. L-2498/Ap' 2, 192/J. aa'nta' #at$% •

•

•

•

•

•

•

Saura ;nc$ applied or an industrial loan in the amount o 5!