REPUBLIC VS BAGTAS [G.R. No. L-17474 October 25, 1!2" PA#ILLA, $.

%ACTS:
Jose Bagtas borrowed from the Bureau of Animal Industry three bulls for a period
of one year for breeding purposes subject to a government charge of breeding
fee of 10% of the boo value of the boos!
"pon the e#piration of the contract$ Bagtas ased for a renewal for another one
year$ however$ the %ecretary of Agriculture and &atural 'esources approved
only the renewal for one bull and other two bulls be returned!
Bagtas then wrote a letter to the (irector of Animal Industry that he would pay
the value of the three bulls with a deduction of yearly depreciation! )he (irector
advised him that the value cannot be depreciated and ased Bagtas to either
return the bulls or pay their boo value!
Bagtas neither paid nor returned the bulls! )he 'epublic then commenced an
action against Bagtas ordering him to return the bulls or pay their boo value!
After hearing$ the trial *ourt ruled in favor of the 'epublic$ as such$ the 'epublic
moved e# parte for a writ of e#ecution which the court granted!
+elicidad Bagtas$ the surviving spouse and administrator of Bagtas, estate$
returned the two bulls and filed a motion to -uash the writ of e#ecution since one
bull cannot be returned for it was illed by gunshot during a .u raid! )he *ourt
denied her motion hence$ this appeal certified by the *ourt of Appeals because
only -uestions of law are raised!
ISSUE: /0& the contract was commodatum1thus$ Bagtas be held liable for its loss due
to force majeure!
RULING:
A contract of commodatum is essentially gratuitous! %upreme *ourt held that
Bagtas was liable for the loss of the bull even though it was caused by a
fortuitous event!
If the contract was one of lease$ then the 10% breeding charge is compensation
2rent3 for the use of the bull and Bagtas$ as lessee$ is subject to the
responsibilities of a possessor! .e is also in bad faith because he continued to
possess the bull even though the term of the contract has already e#pired!
If the contract was one of commodatum$ he is still liable because: 213 he ept the
bull longer than the period stipulated1 and 243 the thing loaned has been delivered
with appraisal of its value 210%3! &o stipulation that in case of loss of the bull due
to fortuitous event the late husband of the appellant would be e#empt from
liability!
)he original period of the loan was from 5 6ay 1785 to 9 6ay 1787! )he loan of
one bull was renewed for another period of one year to end on 5 6ay 17:0! But
the appellant ept and used the bull until &ovember 17:; when during a .u raid
it was illed by stray bullets!
+urthermore$ when lent and delivered to the deceased husband of the appellant
the bulls had each an appraised boo value$ to with: the %indhi$ at <1$19=!8=$ the
Bhagnari at <1$;40!:= and the %ahiniwal at <988!8=! It was not stipulated that in
case of loss of the bull due to fortuitous event the late husband of the appellant
would be e#empt from liability!