RP VS Bagtas

Republic of the Philippines vs. Jose Bagtas, Felicidad Bagtas, administratrix of the intestate estate left by Jose Bagtas Facts:

  Jose Jose Ba Bagta gtas s bor borrow rowed ed fro from m the Bureau Bureau of Ani Anima mall Ind Indus ustry try 3 bu bulls lls for 1 yea yearr for breedin breeding g purpos pur poses, es, this is cha charge rged d wit with h 10 10% % br breed eeding ing fee of th the e boo book k val value ue of the bulls. bulls. Wh When en the contract expired, Bagtas asked for a renewal for another year but only one bull rental was granted. He offered to buy the bulls at book value less depreciation, but the Bureau told him that he should either return the bulls or pay for their book value. Bagtas failed to pay the book value, and in turn, the Republic commenced and action with the CFI Manila to order the return of the bulls of the payment of book value. Felicidad Bagtas, the surviving spouse and administratrix of the decedent’s estate, said that in 1952, the two bulls have have already been returned but the remaining one died of gunshot during a Huk raid. The return of the two bulls were admitted as a fact by the court. As for the third bull, Felicidad Felicidad contends that that because the contract contract involving the bulls is a commodatum, commodatum, the obligation is extinguished since the contract is the loss through fortuitous event should be borne by the owner. Issue:

Whether Bagtas is liable for the death of the bull and should be made to pay its value? Held:

 Yes, estate of Bagtas is liable for the valkue of the bull as it has not been returned to the Bureau after expiration of the renewed lease. A co cont ntra ract ct of commodatum is es esse sent ntia iall lly y gr grat atui uito tous us.. If th the e br bree eedi ding ng fe fee e be co cons nsid ider ered ed a compensation, then the contract would be a lease of the bull. Under article 1671 of the Civil Code the lessee would be subject to the responsibilities of a possessor in bad faith, because she had continued possession of the bull after the expiry of the contract. And even if the contract be commodatum, commodatum, still the appellant is liable, because article 1942 of the Civil Code provides that a bailee in a contract of  commodatum . . . is liable for loss of the things, even if it should be through a fortuitous event: (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 responsibility in case of a fortuitous event;  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. 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. Special proceedings for the administration and settlement of the estate of the deceased Jose V. Bagtas having been instituted in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Q-200), the money judgment rendered in favor of the appellee cannot be enforced by means of a writ of execution but must be presented to the probate court for payment by the appellant, the administratrix appointed by the court.