Quintos vs. Beck Case Digest

MARGARITA QUINTOS and ANGEL A. ANSALDO, plaintiffs-appellants vs. BECK, defendant-appellee.
G.R. No. L-46240, November 3, 1939
Doctrine: In a contract of commodatum, the ownership is retained by the person who loaned it and must be returned to them as
stipulated in their agreement. (Arts. 1933, 1946-1958)
Facts:
The plaintiff brought this action to compel the defendant to return 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, 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 on September 14, 1936, these three notified the defendant
of the conveyance, giving him sixty days to vacate the premises under one of the clauses of the contract of lease.
Thereafter, the plaintiff required the defendant to return all the furniture transferred to him for them in the house where they
were found.
The defendant, through another person, wrote to the plaintiff reiterating that she may call for the furniture in the ground floor of
the house. Then 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 month when the lease in 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.
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, in the custody of the said sheriff.
Issue:
WON the contract between the parties was a contract of commodatum.
Held:
The contract entered into between the parties is one of commadatum, 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.
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.
As to the value of the furniture, we do not believe that the plaintiff is entitled to the payment thereof by the defendant in case of
his inability to return some of the furniture; 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 latter determined by the trial Court
through evidence which the parties may desire to present.
The costs in both instances should be borne by the defendant.
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 pays the legal expenses and other judicial costs which the plaintiff would
not have otherwise defrayed.
Notes:
RTC Decision: She appealed from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila which ordered that the defendant return
to her the three has 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 (proportionally) by both parties.
SC Decision: The appealed judgment is modified and the defendant is ordered to return and deliver to the plaintiff, in the
residence to return and deliver to the plaintiff, in the residence or house of the latter, all the furniture. The expenses which may
be occasioned by the delivery to and deposit of the furniture with the Sheriff shall be for the account of the defendant. The
defendant shall pay the costs in both instances.

Quintos vs. Beck Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quintos vs. Beck Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quintos vs. Beck Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARGARITA QUINTOS and ANGEL A. ANSALDO, plaintiffs-appellants vs. BECK, defendant-appellee.

G.R. No. L-46240, November 3, 1939

WON the contract between the parties was a contract of commodatum.

The costs in both instances should be borne by the defendant.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.