12/15/13

CentralBooks:Reader

262

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Republic vs. Bagtas No.L17474.October25,1962.

REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee, vs. JOSE V. BAGTAS, defendant, FELICIDAD M. BAGTAS, AdministratrixoftheIntestateEstateleftbythelateJose V.Bagtas,petitionerappellant.

Contracts; Loan of bulls for breeding purposes; Nature of contract affected by payment of fee.The loan by the Bureau of Animal Industry to the defendant of three bulls for breeding purposes for a period of one year, later on renewed for another as regards one bull, was subject to the payment by the borrower of breeding fee of 10% of the book value of the bulls. If the breeding fee be considered a compensation, the contract would be a lease of the bulls; it could not be a contract of commodatum, because that contractisessentiallygratuitous. Judgments; Proceedings for administration and settlement of estate of the deceased; Enforcement of money judgments.Where special proceedings for the administration and settlement of the estate of the deceased have been instituted, the money judgment renderedinfavorofapartycannotbeenforcedbymeansofawrit of execution, but must be presented to the probate court for paymentbytheadministratorappointedbythecourt.

APPEALfromadecisionoftheCourtofFirstInstanceof Manila.Macadaeg,J. ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. D. T. Reyes, Luison & Associates for petitioner appellant. Solicitor Generalforplaintiffappellee.
263

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000142f4f527a52048059c000a0082004500cc/t/?o=True

1/7

12/15/13

CentralBooks:Reader

VOL.6,OCTOBER25,1962 Republic vs. Bagtas PADILLA,J.:

263

The Court of Appeals certified this case to this Court becauseonlyquestionsoflawareraised. On 8 May 1948 Jose V. Bagtas borrowed from the RepublicofthePhilippinesthroughtheBureauofAnimal Industry three bulls: a Red Sindhi with a book value of P1,176.46, a Bhagnari, of P1,320.56 and a Sahiniwal, of P744.46,foraperiodofoneyearfrom8May1948to7May 1949forbreedingpurposessubjecttoagovernmentcharge ofbreedingfeeof10%ofthebookvalueofthebulls.Upon theexpirationon7May1949ofthecontract,theborrower askedforarenewalforanotherperiodofoneyear.However, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approvedarenewalthereofofonlyonebullforanotheryear from8May1949to7May1950andrequestedthereturnof the other two. On 25 March 1950 Jose V. Bagtas wrote to theDirectorofAnimalIndustrythathewouldpaythevalue of the three bulls. On 17 October 1950 he reiterated his desire to buy them at a value with a deduction of yearly depreciationtobeapprovedbytheAuditorGeneral.On19 October1950theDirectorofAnimalIndustryadvisedhim thatthebookvalueofthethreebullscouldnotbereduced and that they either be returned or their book value paid notlaterthan31October1950.JoseV.Bagtasfailedtopay thebookvalueofthethreebullsortoreturnthem.So,on20 December1950intheCourtofFirstInstanceofManilathe Republic of the Philippines commenced an action against him praying that he be ordered to return the three bulls loanedtohimortopaytheirbookvalueinthetotalsumof P3,241.45 and the unpaid breeding fee in the sum of P199.62,bothwithinterests,andcosts;andthatotherjust andequitablereliefbegrantedin(civilNo.12818). On5July1951JoseV.Bagtas,throughcounselNavarro, RoseteandManalo,answeredthatbecauseofthebadpeace andordersituationinCagayanValley,particularlyinthe barrioofBaggao,andofthependingappealhehadtakento theSecretaryofAgricultureandNaturalResourcesandthe PresidentofthePhilippinesfromtherefusalbytheDirector ofAnimalIndustrytodeductfromthebookvalue
264
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000142f4f527a52048059c000a0082004500cc/t/?o=True 2/7

12/15/13

CentralBooks:Reader

264

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Republic vs. Bagtas

of the bulls corresponding yearly depreciation of 8% from the date of acquisition, to which depreciation the Auditor Generaldidnotobject,hecouldnotreturntheanimalsnor pay their value and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. After hearing, on 30 July 1956 the trial court rendered judgment
xxxsentencingthelatter(defendant)topaythesumofP3,625.09 the total value of the three bulls plus the breeding fees in the amountofP626.17withinterestonbothsumsof(at)thelegalrate fromthefilingofthiscomplaintandcosts.

On9October1958theplaintiffmoved ex parteforawritof executionwhichthecourtgrantedon18Octoberandissued on11November1958.On2December1958itgrantedanex partemotionfiledbytheplaintiffon28November1958for theappointmentofaspecialsherifftoservethewritoutside Manila. Of this order appointing a special sheriff, on 6 December1958,FelicidadM.Bagtas,thesurvivingspouse of the defendant Jose V. Bagtas who died on 23 October 1951andasadministratrixofhisestate,wasnotified.On7 January 1959 she filed a motion alleging that on 26 June 1952thetwobulls,SindhiandBhagnari,werereturnedto the Bureau of Animal Industry and that sometime in November 1958 the third bull, the Sahiniwal, died from gunshot wounds inflicted during a Huk raid on Hacienda Felicidad Intal, and praying that the writ of execution be quashedandthatawritofpreliminaryinjunctionbeissued. On31January1959theplaintiffobjectedtohermotion.On 6February1959shefiledareplythereto.Onthesameday, 6February,theCourtdeniedhermotion.Hence,thisappeal certifiedbytheCourtofAppealstothisCourt,asstatedat thebeginningofthisopinion. Itistruethaton26June1952JoseM.Bagtas,Jr.,sonof the appellant by the late defendant, returned the Sindhi and Bhagnari bulls to Roman Remorin, Superintendent of theNVBStation,BureauofAnimalIndustry,Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, as evidenced by a memorandum receipt signedbythelatter(Exhibit2).Thatiswhyinitsobjection of31January1959totheappellantsmotionto
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000142f4f527a52048059c000a0082004500cc/t/?o=True 3/7

12/15/13

CentralBooks:Reader

265

VOL.6,OCTOBER25,1962 Republic vs. Bagtas

265

quashthewritofexecutiontheappelleepraysthatanother writ of execution in the sum of P859.53 be issued against the estate of defendant deceased Jose V. Bagtas. She cannot be held liable for the two bulls which already had beenreturnedtoandreceivedbytheappellee. The appellant contends that the Sahiniwal bull was accidentallykilledduringaraidbytheHuksinNovember 1953 upon the surrounding barrios of Hacienda Felicidad Intal, Baggao, Cagayan, where the animal was kept, and thatassuchdeathwasdueto force majeuresheisrelieved fromthedutyofreturningthebullorpayingitsvaluetothe appellee.Thecontentioniswithoutmerit.Theloanbythe appellee to the late defendant Jose V. Bagtas of the three bullsforbreedingpurposesforaperiodofoneyearfrom8 May1948to7May1949,lateronrenewedforanotheryear as regards one bull, was subject to the payment by the borrower of breeding fee of 10% of the book value of the bulls. The appellant contends that the contract was commodatum and that, for that reason, as the appellee retainedownershiportitletothebullitshouldsufferitsloss due to force majeure. A contract of commodatum is 1 essentiallygratuitous. If the breeding fee be considered a compensation,thenthecontractwouldbealeaseofthebull. 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, still the appellant is liable, because article 1942oftheCivilCodeprovidesthatabaileeinacontractof commodatum
x x x is liable for loss of the things, even if it should be through a fortuitousevent: (2) Ifhekeepsitlongerthantheperiodstipulatedxxx (3) Ifthethingloanedhasbeendeliveredwithappraisalofits value, unless there is a stipulation exempting the bailee fromresponsibilityincaseofafortuitousevent;

The original period of the loan was from 8 May 1948 to 7

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000142f4f527a52048059c000a0082004500cc/t/?o=True 4/7

12/15/13

CentralBooks:Reader

May 1949. The loan of one bull was renewed for another periodofoneyeartoendon8May1950.Butthe
_______________
1Article1933oftheCivilCode.

266

266

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Republic vs. Bagtas

appellantkeptandusedthebulluntilNovember1953when 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 bookvalue,towit:theSindhi,atP1,176.46,theBhagnari, at P1,320.56 and the Sahiniwal, at P744.46. 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. The appellants contention that the demand or prayer by the appellee for the return of the bull or the payment of its value being a money claim should be presented or filed in the intestate proceedings of the defendant who died on 23 October 1951, is not altogether withoutmerit.However,theclaimthathiscivilpersonality having ceased to exist the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case against him, is untenable, because section 17 of Rule3oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthat
After a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the courtshallorder,uponpropernotice,thelegalrepresentativeofthe deceasedtoappearandtobesubstitutedforthedeceased,withina periodofthirty(30)days,orwithinsuchtimeasmaybegranted.x xx.

and after the defendants death on 23 October 1951 his counsel failed to comply with section 16 of Rule 3 which providesthat
Wheneverapartytoapendingcasediesxxxitshallbethedutyof hisattorneytoinformthecourtpromptlyofsuchdeathxxxandto give the name and residence of the executor, administrator, guardian,orotherlegalrepresentativeofthedeceasedxxx.

The notice by the probate court and its publication in the

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000142f4f527a52048059c000a0082004500cc/t/?o=True 5/7

12/15/13

CentralBooks:Reader

Voz de Manila that Felicidad M. Bagtas had been issued letters of administration of the estate of the late Jose V. Bagtas and that all persons having claims for money againstthedeceasedJoseV.Bagtas,arisingfromcontract, express or implied, whether the same be due not due, or contingent, for funeral expenses and expenses of the last sickness of the said decedent, and judgment for money againsthim,tofilesaidclaimswiththeClerkofthisCourt attheCityHallBldg.,Highway54,QuezonCity,within
267

VOL.6,OCTOBER25,1962 Republic vs. Bagtas

267

six(6)monthsfromthedateofthefirstpublicationofthis order, serving a copy thereof upon the aforementioned Felicidad M. Bagtas, the appointed administratrix of the estateofthesaiddeceased,isnotanoticetothecourtand theappelleewhoweretobenotifiedofthedefendantsdeath inaccordancewiththeabovequotedrule,andtherewasno reasonforsuchfailuretonotify,becausetheattorneywho appeared for the defendant was the same who represented theadministratrixinthespecialproceedingsinstitutedfor the administration and settlement of his estate. The appellee or its attorney or representative could not be expected to know of the death of the defendant or of the administration proceedings of his estate instituted in anothercourt,iftheattorneyforthedeceaseddefendantdid not notify the plaintiff or its attorney of such death as requiredbytherule. As the appellant already had returned the two bulls to the appellee, the estate of the late defendant is only liable forthesumofP859.63,thevalueofthebullwhichhasnot beenreturnedtotheappellee,becauseitwaskilledwhilein the custody of the administratrix of his estate. This is the amount prayed for by the appellee in its objection on 31 January1959tothemotionfiledon7January1959bythe appellantforthequashingofthewritofexecution. 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(Q200),themoneyjudgmentrenderedinfavorofthe appelleecannotbeenforcedbymeansofawritofexecution butmustbepresentedtotheprobatecourtforpaymentby
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000142f4f527a52048059c000a0082004500cc/t/?o=True 6/7

12/15/13

CentralBooks:Reader

theappellant,theadministratrixappointedbythecourt. ACCORDINGLY,thewritofexecutionappealedfromis setaside,withoutpronouncementastocosts. Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ.,concur. Barrera, J.,concursintheresult. Writ set aside.
268

268

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED Absalud vs. Ramos

Note.Money claims against the estate must be submittedtotheprobatecourtforpayment;otherwise,they are barred forever, except that they may be set forth as counterclaim in any action that the executor or administrator may bring against the claimants (Rule 86, Section5,RulesofCourt). ______________

Copyright 2013 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000142f4f527a52048059c000a0082004500cc/t/?o=True

7/7