THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.EGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.EGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PEA
FACTS : The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitablebequest made for the constru
ction of a leper hospital andthat father Agustin de la Pea was the duly authorize
drepresentative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. Thedefendant is the admi
nistrator of the estate of Father Dela Pea.In the year 1898 the books Father De l
a Pea, astrustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee thesum of P6,641, co
llected by him for the charitablepurposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposit
ed in hispersonal account P19,000 in the Hongkong andShanghai Bank at Iloilo. Sh
ortly thereafter and during thewar of the revolution, Father De la Pea was arrest
ed bythe military authorities as a political prisoner, and whilethus detained ma
de an order on said bank in favor of theUnited States Army officer under whose c
harge he thenwas for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrestof Father De
la Pea and the confiscation of the funds inthe bank were the result of the claim
of the militaryauthorities that he was an insurgent and that the fundsthus depo
sited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken
from thebank by the military authorities by virtue of such order,was confiscated
and turned over to the Government.While there is considerable dispute in the ca
se over thequestion whether the P6,641 of trust funds was includedin the P19,000
deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, acareful examination of the case leads us
to theconclusion that said trust funds were a part of the fundsdeposited and wh
ich were removed and confiscated bythe military authorities of the United States
.ISSUE : Whether or not Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the money unde
r his trust?RULINGS : The court, therefore, finds and declares thatthe money whi
ch is the subject matter of this action wasdeposited by Father De la Pea in the H
ongkong andShanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said moneywas forcibly t
aken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of th
e insurrection; andthat said Father De la Pea was not responsible for itsloss.Fat
her De la Pea's liability is determined by thoseportions of the Civil Code which
relate to obligations.(Book 4, Title 1.)Although the Civil Code states that "a p
erson obliged togive something is also bound to preserve it with thediligence pe
rtaining to a good father of a family" (art.1094), it also provides, following t
he principle of theRoman law,
major casus est, cui humana infirmitasresistere non potest
, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which
havingbeen foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of thecases expressly me
ntioned in the law or those in whichthe obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)By
placing the money in th