Title Quintos v.
Beck
Ponente IMPERIAL, J.
Doctrine COMMODATUM; OBLIGATION OF THE PARTIES.—The contract entered into
between the parties is one of commodatum, because under it the plaintiff
gratuitously granted the use of the furniture to the defendant, reserving for
herself the ownership thereof; by this contract the defendant bound himself to
return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latter's demand (Clause 7 of the
contract, Exhibit "A"; articles 1740, paragraph 1, and 1741 of the Civil Code).
The obligation voluntarily assumed by the defendant 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. The defendant did not comply with
this obligation when he merely placed them at the disposal of the plaintiff,
retaining for his benefit the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps.
Facts ● The plaintiff brought this action to compel the defendant to return to
her certain furniture which she lent him for his use.
● The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and as such occupied the
latter's house on M. H. del Pilar street.
● Upon the novation of the contract of lease between the plaintiff and
the defendant, the former gratuitously granted to the latter the use of
the furniture [gas heaters and electric lamps] subject to the condition
that the defendant would return them to the plaintiff upon the latter's
demand.
● The plaintiff sold the property to Maria Lopez and Rosario Lopez and
notified the defendant of the conveyance, giving him sixty days to
vacate the premises.
● Thereafter the plaintiff required the defendant to return all the
furniture transferred to him for his use. The defendant answered that
she may call for them in the house where they are found.
● November 5, 1936, the defendant, through another person, wrote to
the plaintiff reiterating that she may call for the furniture in the ground
floor of the house.
● On the 7th of the same month, the defendant wrote another letter to
the plaintiff informing her that he could not give up the three gas
heaters and the four electric lamps because he would use them until
the 15th of the same month when the lease is due to expire. The
● plaintiff refused to get the furniture in view of the fact that the
defendant had declined to make delivery of all of them.
● On November 15th, before vacating the house, the defendant
deposited with the Sheriff all the furniture belonging to the plaintiff and
they are now on deposit in the warehouse situated at No. 1521, Rizal
Avenue. in the custody of the said sheriff.
Contentions Petitioner [Quintos and Ansaldo] Respondent [Beck]
Xxx
xxx
Lower Courts CFI: ordered that the defendant return to her the three gas heaters and the
four electric lamps found in the possession of the Sheriff of said city, that she
call for the other furniture from the said Sheriff of Manila at her own expense,
and that the fees which the Sheriff may charge for the deposit of the furniture
be paid pro rata by both parties
Issue 1. What is the nature of the contract? Commodatum.
2. Who will bear the cost of expenses? Defendant.
SC Ruling Judgment modified. Defendant to return and deliver the furniture to
plaintiff’s residence at former’s expense.
1. The contract entered into between the parties is one of commodatum,
because under it the plaintiff gratuitously granted the use of the furniture to
the defendant, reserving for herself the ownership thereof; by this contract
the defendant bound himself to return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the
latter's demand. The obligation voluntarily assumed by the defendant 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.
The defendant did not comply with this obligation when he merely placed
them at the disposal of the plaintiff, retaining for his benefit the three gas
heaters and the four electric lamps.
As to the value of the furniture, plaintiff is not entitled to the payment thereof
by the defendant in case of his inability to return some of the furniture,
because under paragraph 6 of the stipulation of facts, the defendant has
neither agreed to nor admitted the correctness of the said value. Should the
defendant fail to deliver some of the furniture, the value thereof should be
later determined by the trial Court through evidence which the parties may
desire to present.
2. As the defendant had voluntarily undertaken to return all the furniture to
the plaintiff, upon the latter's demand, the Court could not legally compel her
to bear the expenses occasioned by the deposit of the furniture at the
defendant's behest. The latter, as bailee, was not entitled to place the
furniture on deposit; nor was the plaintiff under a duty to accept the offer to
return the furniture, because the defendant wanted to retain the three gas
heaters and the four electric lamps. The costs in both instances should be
borne by the defendant because the plaintiff is the prevailing party (section
487 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The defendant was the one who breached
the contract of commodatum, and without any reason he refused to return
and deliver all the furniture upon the plaintiff's demand. In these
circumstances, it is just and equitable that he pay the legal expenses and
other judicial costs which the plaintiff would not have otherwise defrayed.
