(1) possessor in bad faith, because she had continued Private respondent instituted an action for recovery of

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND possession of the sum of money and the court adjudicated in favor of
APPELLEE, VS. JOSE V. BAGTAS, DEFENDANT. private respondent. On appeal, defendants (herein
FELICIDAD M. BAGTAS, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE bull after the expiry of the contract. And even if the
INTESTATE ESTATE LEFT BY THE LATE JOSE V. contract be commodatum, still the appellant is liable, petitioner) argued that the transaction between
BAGTAS, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT. because paragraph 2, Article 1942 of the Civil Code Doronilla and Vives was one simple loan and not
G. R. No. L-17474, October 25, 1962 provides that a bailee in a contract of commodatum — commodatum.
is liable for loss of the thing, even if it should be through ISSUE:
FACTS: a fortuitous event if he keeps it longer than the period Is the transaction between private respondent
On May 8, 1948, Defendant borrowed from stipulated. and petitioners not a commodatum considering that the
the Bureau of Animal Industry three bulls: a Red Sindhi object of the transaction is money, a consumable thing?
with a book value of P 1,176.46, a Bhagnari of (2)
P1,320.56 and a Sahiniwal of P744.46 for breeding PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (NOW RULING:
purposes for a period of one year subject to a breeding FIRST INTERNATIONAL BANK), PETITIONER, VS. The transaction between private respondent
fee of 10% of the book value of the bulls. Upon HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND FRANKLIN VIVES, and Doronilla was a commodatum and not a mutuum.
expiration of the of the contract, defendant asked for the RESPONDENTS. Consumable goods may be the subject of commodatum
renewal of contract to which the Secretary of G.R. No. 115324, February 19, 2003 if the purpose of the contract is not the consumption of
Agriculture and Natural Resources approved but only the object, as when it is merely for exhibition.
for one bull and requested the return of the other. FACTS: The evidence shows that private respondent
Sometime, in November 1953, more than Private respondent Vives accommodated the agreed to deposit his money in the savings account of
three years after the stipulated period in the renewed request of his friend Sanchez to help her friend Sterela specifically for the purpose of making it appear
contract, the subject bull died from a gunshot wound Doronilla, in incorporating his business, by depositing a that said firm had sufficient capitalization for
attained during a Huk raid. certain amount of money in the bank account of Sterela incorporation, with the promise that the amount shall be
Defendant contends that the contract was for purposes of its incorporation. She assured private returned within thirty days. Private respondent merely
commodatum, therefore, the Republic as the owner of respondent that he could withdraw his money from said accommodated Doronilla by lending his money without
bull should suffer the loss. account after thirty days. They had with them an consideration, as a favor to his good friend Sanchez. It
authorization letter from Doronilla authorizing Sanchez was however clear to the parties to the transaction that
ISSUE: and her companions, “in coordination with Atienza, the money would not be removed from Sterela’s
Is the contract a commodatum? bank’s assistant manager, to open an account for savings account and would be returned to private
Sterela Marketing Services in the amount of respondent after thirty days.
RULING: P200,000.00. In opening the account, the authorized
No. A contract of commodatum is essentially signatories were Inocencia Vives and/or Angeles (3)
gratuitous. If the breeding fee be considered Sanchez. COLITO T. PAJUYO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF
compensation, then the contract would be a lease. Subsequently, Vives found out that only APPEALS AND EDDIE GUEVARRA, RESPONDENTS.
Under Article 1671 of the Civil Code, the P90,000.00 remained in said account. Upon series of G.R. No. 146364, June 03, 2004
lessee would be subject to the responsibilities of a demand, Doronilla issued postdated check in favor of
Vives but was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. FACTS:
 Sometime in 1979, petitioner Pajuyo paid to a permission would result in the termination of the lease. Yes. That it is a fact explicitly admitted in the
certain Perez the rights over a 250-square meter lot in The tenant’s withholding of the property would then be agreement, that neither Andres nor his successors paid
Barrio Payatas. Pajuyo then constructed a house made unlawful. any consideration or price whatever for the use of the
of light materials on the lot. Pajuyo and his family lived lot occupied by the said building; whence it is, perhaps,
in that both parties have denominated that use a
commodatum.
the house for six years. In December 1985, Pajuyo and
private respondent Guevarra executed a Kasunduan, (4)
that Pajuyo, as owner of the house, allowed Guevarra ALEJANDRA MINA ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND
to live in the house for free provided Guevarra would APPELLANTS, VS. RUPERTA PASCUAL ET AL., (5)
maintain the cleanliness and orderliness of the house. DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES. MARGARITA QUINTOS AND ANGEL A. ANSALDO,
Guevarra promised that he would voluntarily vacate the G.R. No. 8321, October 14, 1913 PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. BECK,
premises on Pajuyo’s demand. DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.
After nine years, Pajuyo informed Guevarra of FACTS: G.R. No. 46240, November 03, 1939
his need of the house and demanded that Guevarra Francisco Fontanilla and Andres Fontanilla
vacate the house. Guevarra refused, hence ejectment were brothers.  Francisco acquired a lot in the center of FACTS:
case against Guevarra was instituted. the town of Laoag. Andres, with the consent of his Beck was a tenant of the plaintiff’s house. The
brother Francisco, erected a warehouse on a part of the latter gratuitously granted to the former the use of the
ISSUE: said lot. furniture described in their agreement subject to the
Is the Kasunduan a contract of Francisco was substituted by Alejandra Mina condition that Beck would return them to the plaintiff
Commodatum? and Andres by the children of Ruperta Pascual as their upon demand. The plaintiff sold the property to other
RULING: respective heir as parties in the case. person and demanded from Beck the return of the
No. An essential feature of commodatum is Pascual, the guardian of the minors, sold at furniture and to vacate the property in 60 days. Beck
that it is gratuitous. Another feature of commodatum is public auction all the land and all the rights, title, informed the plaintiff that it could not give up some of
that the use of the thing belonging to another is for a interest, and ownership in the said property to Cu Joco. the furniture for he would use them until the expiration
certain period. Plaintiffs commenced the present action for the purpose of the agreement. Thereafter, instead of returning to the
The Kasunduan reveals that the of having the sale of the said lot declared null and void plaintiff, Beck deposited with the Sheriff all the furniture
accommodation accorded by Pajuyo to Guevarra was and of no force and effect since the minors represented belonging to the former.
not essentially gratuitous. While the Kasunduan did not by Ruperta Pascual never were the owners of the said
require Guevarra to pay rent, it obligated him to lot, nor were they ever considered to be such. ISSUE:
maintain the property in good condition. The imposition Is the contract a commodatum?
of this obligation makes the Kasunduan a contract ISSUE:
different from a commodatum. The effects of the Was the nature of the contract between RULING:
Kasunduan are also different from that of a Francisco and Andres a commodatum? Yes. The contract entered into between the
commodatum. Case law on ejectment has treated parties is one of commadatum because under it the
relationship based on tolerance as one that is akin to a RULING: plaintiff gratuitously granted the use of the furniture to
landlord-tenant relationship where the withdrawal of the defendant, reserving for herself the ownership
thereof; by this contract Beck bound himself to return
the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latter’s demand.
The obligation voluntarily assumed by Beck to return
the furniture upon the plaintiff's demand, means that he
should return all of them to the plaintiff at the latter's
residence or house.