CONTRACT OF DEPOSIT

The Concept of Deposit

A. General Concepts
Art. 1962 A deposit is constituted from the moment a person
receives a thing belonging to another, with the obligation of safely
keeping it and of returning the same. If the safekeeping of the thing
delivered is not the principal purpose of the contract, there is no
deposit but some other contract.
B. Kinds of Deposits
Art. 1964 A
extrajudicially.

deposit

may

be

constituted

judicially

or

Art. 1967 An extrajudicial deposit is either voluntary or necessary.

Voluntary Deposit
A. General Concepts
Art. 1963 An agreement to constitute a deposit is binding, but the
deposit itself is not perfected until the delivery of the thing.
Art. 1968 A voluntary deposit is that wherein the delivery is made
by the will of the depositor. A deposit may also be made by two or
more persons each of whom believes himself entitled to the thing
deposited with a third person, who shall deliver it in a proper case to
the one to whom it belongs.
Art. 2005 - A judicial deposit or sequestration takes place when
an attachment or seizure of property in litigation is ordered.
Art. 1995 A deposit is extinguished:
(1) Upon the loss or destruction of the thing deposited;
(2) In case of a gratuitous deposit, upon the death of either the
depositor or the depositary.
B. Form of Deposit
Art. 1969 A contract of deposit may be entered into orally or in
writing.

C. Object of Deposit
Art. 1966 Only movable things may be the object of a deposit.
D. Consideration in Deposit
Art. 1965 A deposit is a gratuitous contract, except when there is an
agreement to the contrary, or unless the depositary is engaged in the
business of storing goods.
E. Parties to a Deposit
Depositor the person who deposits
Depositary the person who receives a thing belonging to another,
with the obligation of safely keeping it and of returning the same
F. Obligation to Safekeep
Safekeeping of the thing delivered must be the principal
purpose of the contract. Otherwise, the contract is not a deposit.
BPI vs IAC & Zshomack; GR No. L-66826, August 19, 1988, 164
SCRA 630
Facts:
Rizaldy T. Zshornack and his wife maintained in COMTRUST a dollar savings
account and a peso current account. An application for a dollar draft was
accomplished by Virgillo Garcia branch manager of COMTRUST payable to a
certain LeovigildaDizon. In the PPLICtion, Garcia indicated that the amount
was to be charged to the dollar savings account of the Zshornacks. There
wasa no indication of the name of the purchaser of the dollar draft. Comtrust
issued a check payable to the order of Dizon. When Zshornack noticed the
withdrawal from his account, he demanded an explainaiton from the bank. In
its answer, Comtrust claimed that the peso value of the withdrawal was
given to Atty. Ernesto Zshornack, brother of Rizaldy. When he encashed with
COMTRUST a cashiers check for P8,450 issued by the manila banking
corporation payable to Ernesto.
Issue: Whether the contract between petitioner and respondent bank is a
deposit?

Ruling:
The document which embodies the contract states that the US$3,000.00 was
received by the bank for safekeeping. The subsequent acts of the parties
also show that the intent of the parties was really for the bank to safely
keep the dollars and to return it to Zshornack at a later time. Thus,
Zshornack demanded the return of the money on May 10, 1976, or over five
months later.
The above arrangement is that contract defined under Article 1962, New
Civil Code.
1) Way of the Deposit
Art. 1974 The depositary may change the way of the deposit if
under the circumstances he may reasonably presume that the
depositor would consent to the change if he knew of the facts of the
situation. However, before the depositary may make such change,
he shall notify the depositor thereof and wait for his
decision, unless delay would cause danger.
Art. 1975 The depositary holding certificates, bonds, securities or
instruments which earn interest shall be bound to collect the latter
when it becomes due, and to take such steps as may be necessary
in order that the securities may preserve their value and the rights
corresponding to them according to law.
The above provision shall not apply to contracts for the rent
of safety deposit boxes.
Art. 1976 Unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, the
depositary may commingle grain or other articles of the same kind
and quality, in which case the various depositors shall own or have
a proportionate interest in the mass.
Art. 1977 GR: The depositary cannot make use of the thing
deposited without the express permission of the depositor.
Otherwise, he shall be liable for damages.
Exception: However, when the preservation of the thing deposited
requires its use, it must be used but only for that purpose.

Art. 1978 When the depositary has permission to use the thing
deposited, the contract loses the concept of a deposit and becomes
a loan or commodatum, except where safekeeping is still the
principal purpose of the contract.
The permission shall not be presumed, and its existence
must be proved.
Art. 1981 When the thing deposited is delivered closed and
sealed, the depositary must return it in the same condition, and he
shall be liable for damages should the seal or lock be broken
through his fault.
Fault on the part of the depositary is presumed, unless there is proof
to the contrary.
As regards the value of the thing deposited, the statement of the
depositor shall be accepted, when the forcible opening is imputable
to the depositary, should there be no proof to the contrary.
However, the courts may pass upon the credibility of the depositor
with respect to the value claimed by him.
When the seal or lock is broken, with or without the
depositarys fault, he shall keep the secret of the deposit.
Art. 1982 When it becomes necessary to open a locked box
or receptacle, the depositary is presumed authorized to do so, if
the key has been delivered to him; or when the instructions of the
depositor as regards the deposit cannot be executed without
opening the box or receptacle.
CA Agro-industrial Devt. Corp. vs CA & Security Bank, GR No.
90027; March 3, 1993; 219 SCRA 426
Facts:
CA Agro (through its President, Aguirre) and spouses Pugao entered
into an agreement whereby the former purchased two parcels of land
for P350, 525 with a P75, 725 down payment while the balance was
covered by three (3) postdated checks. Among the terms embodied in
a Memorandum of True and Actual Agreement of Sale of Land were
that titles to the lots shall be transferred to the petitioner upon full
payment of the purchase price and that the owners copies of the
certificates of titles thereto shall be deposited in a safety deposit box
of any bank. The same could be withdrawn only upon the joint
signatures of a representative of the petitioner upon full payment of

the purchase price. They then rented Safety Deposit box of private
respondent Security Bank and Trust Company (SBTC). For this purpose,
both signed a contract of lease which contains the following conditions:
13. The bank is not a depositary of the contents of the safe and it has
neither the possession nor control of the same.
14. The bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except herein
expressly provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection
therewith.

After the execution of the contract, two (2) renters key were given to
Aguirre, and Pugaos. A key guard remained with the bank. The safety
deposit box has two key holes and can be opened with the use of both
keys. Petitioner claims that the CTC were placed inside the said box.
Thereafter, a certain Mrs. Ramos offered to buy from the petitioner the
two (2) lots at a price of P225 per sqm. Mrs. Ramose demanded the
execution of a deed of sale which necessarily entailed the production
of the CTC. Aguirre and Pugaos then proceeded to the bank to open the
safety deposit box. However, when opened in the presence of banks
representative, the box yielded no certificates. Because of the delay in
reconstitution of title, Mrs. Ramos withdrew her earlier offer and as a
consequence petitioner failed to realize the expected profit of P280 ,
500. Hence, the latter filed a complaint for damages.

Issue:
Whether or not the contractual relation between a commercial bank and
another party in the contract of rent of a safety deposit box is one of bailor
and bailee?
Ruling: Yes.
The contract in the case at bar is a special kind of deposit. It cannot be
characterized as an ordinary contract of lease under Article 1643
because the full and absolute possession and control of the safety
deposit box was not given to the joint renters the petitioner and
Pugaos.
American Jurisprudence:
The prevailing rule is that the relation between a bank renting out safedeposit boxes and its customer with respect to the contents of the box is
that of a bail or bailee, the bailment being for hire and mutual benefit.
Our provisions on safety deposit boxes are governed by Section 72
(a) of the General Banking Act, and this primary function is still

found within the parameters of a contract of deposit like the receiving

in custody of funds, documents and other valuable objects for
safekeeping. The renting out of the safety deposit boxes is not
independent from, but related to or in conjunction with, this principal
function. Thus, depositarys liability is governed by our civil code rules
on obligation and contracts, and thus the SBTC would be liable if, in
performing its obligation, it is found guilty of fraud, negligence, delay
or contravention of the tenor of the agreement.
Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro vs De La Pea; GR No. L-6913,
November 21, 1913, 26 Phil 144
Facts:
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro brought action against the
appellant, Gregorio de la Pea, who was the administrator of the
property of the deceased Fr. Agustin de la Pea (deceased- 1900), to
recover the sum of P6,641 (Mexican currency) in the CFI of Iloilo.
The amount of money in question, was collected by the deceased
priest, as an authorized representative to collect fees for the
construction of a leper hospital. The appellee was a trustee of such
charitable bequest. The same amount was deposited, along with Fr. de
la Peas personal funds, in the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank of Iloilo.
During the war of the revolution, Fr. de la Pea was arrested by the
military authorities as a political prisoner. His bank funds were
confiscated as the military authorities thought that the funds were for
revolutionary purposes.
The CFI of Iloilo awarded the plaintiff P6,641 with interest at the legal
rate from the beginning of action, thus this appeal.
Issue: Whether Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the bequest money
by placing it in his personal bank account?
Ruling: No.

Fr. de la Pea and his trustee (or estate administrator), Gregorio de la

Pea is not liable for the loss of the bequest money.
Fr. de la Peas liability is determined by portions in the CC that relate
to obligations (Book 4, Title 1.) and the NCC (Book 4, Title 1.)
Although Article 1094 of the CC, now, Article 1163 (The NCC) discusses
that a person obliged to give something is also bound to preserve it
with the diligence pertaining to a good father of a family, it also states

that no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or
which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the
cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation
so declares (Article 1105, the CC and Article 1174, The NCC).
The precise question is not about negligence as we cannot measure
nor say if Fr. de la Pea was indeed negligent by depositing the
donated funds in his bank. We cannot also do the same if he just left
the funds in his home or if he deposited the amount in a separate
account as a trustee. No law prohibited him from depositing the
amount as he did and no law changed his responsibility because of
that act. While one who is under obligation to give a thing is obliged,
when he foresees events which may be dangerous to his trust, to
exhaust all means and measures to elude or, if unavoidable, to
mitigate the effects of those events, the Supreme Court Ruling that in
choosing between two means equally legal, with two possible same
repercussions, making him negligent in selecting either, Fr. de la Pea
was not responsible for the loss of the amount in question.
By placing the money in the bank and mixing it with his
personal funds, respondent did not thereby assume an
obligation different from that under which he would have lain
if such deposit had not been made, nor did he thereby make
himself liable to repay the money at all hazards. The fact that he
placed the trust fund in the bank in his personal account does not add
to his responsibility. Such deposit did not make him a debtor who must
respond at all hazards. There was no law prohibiting him from
depositing it as he did and there was no law which changed his
responsibility by reason of the deposit.
2) Liability for Loss and Damage
a. Liability of the Depositary
Depositarys responsibility, with regard to the safekeeping and the
loss of the thing - governed by the provisions of Title I of this Book
(Law on Obligations)
If the deposit is gratuitous, this fact shall be taken into account in
determining the degree of care that the depositary must observe. (Art.
1972)

Art. 1973 GR: The depositary cannot deposit the thing with a third
person.
Exception: If deposit with a third person is allowed, the depositary is
liable for the loss if he deposited the thing with a person who is
manifestly careless or unfit.
The depositary is responsible for the negligence of his
employees.
Art. 1979 The depositary is liable for the loss of the thing through
a fortuitous event:
(1) If it is so stipulated;
(2) If he uses the thing without the depositors permission;
(3) If he delays its return;
(4) If he allows others to use it, even though he himself may have been
authorized to use the same.
Art. 1990 If the depositary by force majeure or government order
loses the thing and receives money or another thing in its place, he
shall deliver the sum or other thing to the depositor.
b. Liability of the Depositor
Art. 1993 The depositor shall reimburse the depositary for any loss
arising from the character of the thing deposited, unless at the time of
the constitution of the deposit the former was not aware of, or was not
expected to know the dangerous character of the thing, or unless he
notified the depositary of the same, or the latter was aware of it
without advice from the depositor.
a. Liability for Expenses
Art. 1992 - If the deposit is gratuitous, the depositor is obliged to
reimburse the depositary for the expenses he may have incurred for
the preservation of the thing deposited.
G. Obligation to Return
1) By Whom and to Whom
The Depositary must return the thing deposited when required, to the
depositor, or to his heirs and successors, or to the person who may have
been designated in the contract. (Art. 1972)

Art. 1970 If a person having capacity to contract accepts a deposit made

by one who is incapacitated, the former shall be subject to all the obligations
of a depositary, and may be compelled to return the thing by the guardian,
or administrator, of the person who made the deposit, or by the latter
himself if he should acquire capacity.
Art. 1971 If the deposit has been made by a capacitated person with
another who is not, the depositor shall only have an action to recover the
thing deposited while it is still in the possession of the depositary, or to
compel the latter to pay him the amount by which he may have enriched or
benefited himself with the thing or its price. However, if a third person who
acquired the thing acted in bad faith, the depositor may bring an action
against him for its recovery.
Art. 1984 GR: The depositary cannot demand that the depositor prove his
ownership of the thing deposited.
Exception: Nevertheless, should he discover that the thing has been stolen
and who its true owner is, he must advise the latter of the deposit.
If the owner, in spite of such information, does not claim it within the period
of one month, the depositary shall be relieved of all responsibility by
returning the thing deposited to the depositor.
If the depositary has reasonable grounds to believe that the thing has not
been lawfully acquired by the depositor, the former may return the same.
Art. 1985 When there are two or more depositors, if they are not solidary,
and the thing admits of division, each one cannot demand more than his
share.
When there is solidarity or the thing does not admit of division, the
provisions of articles 1212 and 1214 shall govern. However, if there is a
stipulation that the thing should be returned to one of the depositors, the
depositary shall return it only to the person designated.
Art. 1212 Each of the solidary creditors may do whatever may be useful to
the others, but NOT anything which may be prejudicial to the latter.
Art. 1214 The debtor may pay ANYONE of the solidary creditors; but if any
demand, judicial or extrajudicial, has been made by one of them, payment
should be made to him.

Art. 1986 If the depositor should lose his capacity to contract after having
made the deposit, the thing cannot be returned except to the persons who
may have the administration of his property and rights.
Art. 1991 The depositors heir who in good faith may have sold the thing
which he did not know was deposited, shall only be bound to return the price
he may have received or to assign his right of action against the buyer in
case the price has not been paid him.
2) What to Return
Art. 1983 The thing deposited shall be returned with all its
products, accessories and accessions.
Should the deposit consist of money, the provisions relative to agents in
article 1896 shall be applied to the depositary.
Art. 1896 The agent owes INTEREST on the sums he has applied to his
OWN use from the day on which he did so, and on those which he still owes
after the extinguishment of the agency.
3) Where to Return
Art. 1987 If at the time the deposit was made a place was designated
for the return of the thing, the depositary must take the thing deposited to
such place; but the expenses for transportation shall be borne by the
depositor.
If no place has been designated for the return, it shall be made where the
thing deposited may be, even if it should not be the same place where the
deposit was made, provided that there was no malice on the part of the
depositary.
4) When to Return
Art. 1988 GR: The thing deposited must be returned to the depositor
upon demand, even though a specified period or time for such return may
have been fixed.
Exception: This provision shall not apply when the thing is judicially
attached while in the depositarys possession, or should he have been
notified of the opposition of a third person to the return or the removal of the
thing deposited. In these cases, the depositary must immediately inform the
depositor of the attachment or opposition.

Art. 1989 Unless the deposit is for a valuable consideration, the

depositary who may have justifiable reasons for not keeping the thing
deposited may, even before the time designated, return it to the depositor;
and if the latter should refuse to receive it, the depositary may
secure its consignation from the court.
5) Right to Retention
Art. 1994 The depositary may retain the thing in pledge until the full
payment of what may be due him by reason of the deposit.
Necessary Deposit
A. General Concepts
Art. 1996 A deposit is necessary:
(1) When it is made in compliance with a legal obligation;
(2) When it takes place on the occasion of any calamity, such as fire, storm,
flood, pillage, shipwreck, or other similar events.
B. Examples of Necessary Deposit
1) Compliance with a Legal Obligation
Art. 1997 The deposit referred to in No. 1 of the preceding article shall be
governed by the provisions of the law establishing it, and in case of its
deficiency, by the rules on voluntary deposit.
The deposit mentioned in No. 2 of the preceding article shall be regulated by
the provisions concerning voluntary deposit and by article 2168.
2) On the Occasion of a Calamity
Art. 2168 When during a fire, flood, storm or other calamity, property is
saved from destruction by another person without the knowledge of the
owner, the latter is bound to pay the former just compensation.
3) Passenger Baggage with Common Carriers
Art. 1754 The provisions of Articles 1733 to 1753 (please read) shall
apply to passengers baggage which is NOT in his personal custody or in that
of his employees. As to OTHER BAGGAGE, the rules in Articles 2000 to
2003 concerning the responsibility of HOTEL-KEEPERS shall be applicable.

4) Hotels or Inns
Art. 1998 The deposit of effects made by travellers in hotels or inns shall
also be regarded as necessary. The keepers of hotels or inns shall be
responsible for them as depositaries, provided that notice was given to them,
or to their employees, of the effects brought by the guests and that, on the
part of the latter, they take the precautions which said hotel-keepers or their
substitutes advised relative to the care and vigilance of their effects.
Art. 1999 The hotel-keeper is liable for the vehicles, animals and articles
which have been introduced or placed in the annexes of the hotel.
Art. 2000 The responsibility referred to in the two preceding articles shall
include the loss of, or injury to the personal property of the guests caused by
the servants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as
strangers; but not that which may proceed from any force majeure. The fact
that travellers are constrained to rely on the vigilance of the keeper of the
hotels or inns shall be considered in determining the degree of care required
of him.
Art. 2002 The hotel-keeper is not liable for compensation if the loss is due
to the acts of the guest, his family, servants or visitors, or if the loss arises
from the character of the things brought into the hotel.
Art. 2003 The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from responsibility by
posting notices to the effect that he is not liable for the articles brought by
the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guest
whereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in articles 1998
to 2001 is suppressed or diminished shall be void.
Art. 2004 The hotel-keeper has a right to retain the things brought into
the hotel by the guest, as a security for credits on account of lodging, and
supplies usually furnished to hotel guests.
Durban Apartments Corp. vs Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp. GR
No. 179419; January 12, 2011; 639 SCRA 44
Facts:
On April 30, 2002, at about 11:30 in the evening, Jeffrey S. See drove
his Vitara and stopped in front of City Garden Hotel in Makati Avenue,
Makati City; a parking attendant, whom he had later known to be
defendant x x x Justimbaste, approached and asked for his ignition key,

told him that the latter would park the Vitara for him in front of the
hotel, and issued him a valet parking customers claim stub.
He and Montero, thereafter, checked in at the said hotel; on May 1,
2002, at around 1:00 in the morning, the Hotel Security Officer whom
he later knew to be Horlador called his attention to the fact that his
Vitara was carnapped while it was parked at the parking lot of
Equitable PCI Bank which is in front of the hotel; his Vitara was insured
with [respondent] Pioneer Insurance.
He together with Horlador and defendant x x x Justimbaste went to
Precinct 19 of the Makati City Police to report the carnapping incident,
and a police officer came accompanied them to the Anti-Carnapping
Unit of the said station for investigation, taking of their sworn
statements, and flashing of a voice alarm; he likewise reported the said
incident in PNP TMG in Camp Crame where another alarm was issued;
he filed his claim with [respondent] Pioneer Insurance, and a
representative of the latter, who is also an adjuster of Vesper Insurance
Adjusters-Appraisers [Vesper], investigated the incident; and
[respondent] Pioneer Insurance required him to sign a Release of Claim
and Subrogation Receipt, and finally paid him the sum
of P1,163,250.00 for his claim.

Issue: Whether petitioner Durban Apartments Corp. can be held liable to

respondent Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp. for the loss of Sees
vehicle?
Ruling: YES.
Plainly, from the facts found by the lower courts, the insured See deposited
his vehicle for safekeeping with petitioner, through the latters employee,
Justimbaste. In turn, Justimbaste issued a claim stub to See. Thus, the
contract of deposit was perfected from Sees delivery, when he
handed over to Justimbaste the keys to his vehicle, which
Justimbaste received with the obligation of safely keeping and
returning it. Ultimately, petitioner is liable for the loss of Sees
vehicle.
YHT Realty Corp. vs CA; GR No. 126780, February 17, 2005; 451
SCRA 638
Facts:

On 30 October 1987, McLoughlin arrived from Australia and

registered with Tropicana Hotel. He rented a safety deposit box
as it was his practice to rent a safety deposit box every time he
registered at Tropicana in previous trips. As a tourist, McLoughlin
was aware of the procedure observed by Tropicana relative to its
safety deposit boxes. The safety deposit box could only be
opened through the use of two keys, one of which is given to the
registered guest, and the other remaining in the possession of
the management of the hotel. When a registered guest wished to
open his safety deposit box, he alone could personally request
the management who then would assign one of its employees to
accompany the guest and assist him in opening the safety
deposit box with the two keys.
When McLoughlin discovered several losses from his safety
deposit box, he immediately confronted Lainez and Payam
(employees of the hotel who have the custody of the keys for
such safety deposit box) who admitted that Tan (McLoughlins
close friend) opened the safety deposit box with the key
assigned to him.11 McLoughlin went up to his room where Tan
was staying and confronted her. Tan admitted that she had stolen
McLoughlin's key and was able to open the safety deposit box
with the assistance of Lopez (hotel manager), Payam and
Lainez.12 Lopez also told McLoughlin that Tan stole the key
assigned to McLoughlin while the latter was asleep.
For the payment of the loss, Lainez, Payam, Lopez and Tan
executed a promissory note. Despite the execution of the same,
McLoughlin insisted that it must be the hotel who must assume
responsibility for the loss he suffered. However, Lopez refused to
accept the responsibility relying on the conditions for renting the
safety deposit box entitled:

"Undertaking For the Use Of Safety Deposit Box,"15specifically

paragraphs (2) and (4) thereof, to wit:
2. To release and hold free and blameless TROPICANA APARTMENT
HOTEL from any liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or
use of the said deposit box for any cause whatsoever, including but
not limited to the presentation or use thereof by any other person
should the key be lost;

4. To return the key and execute the RELEASE in favor of TROPICANA

APARTMENT HOTEL upon giving up the use of the box.

On 17 May 1988, McLoughlin went back to Australia and he consulted

his lawyers as to the validity of the abovementioned stipulations. They
opined that the stipulations are void for being violative of universal
hotel practices and customs. His lawyers prepared a letter dated 30
May 1988 which was signed by McLoughlin and sent to President
Corazon Aquino.17 The Office of the President referred the letter to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) which forwarded the same to the Western
Police District (WPD).

Issue: Whether a hotel may evade liability for the loss of items left
with it for safekeeping by its guests, by having these guests execute
written waivers holding the establishment or its employees free from
blame for such loss in light of Article 2003 of the Civil Code which voids
such waivers?
Ruling:
Article 2003 was incorporated in the New Civil Code as an
expression of public policy precisely to apply to situations such
as that presented in this case. The hotel business like the
common carrier's business is imbued with public interest.
Catering to the public, hotelkeepers are bound to provide not
only lodging for hotel guests and security to their persons and
belongings. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the
business. The law in turn does not allow such duty to the public
to be negated or diluted by any contrary stipulation in so-called
"undertakings" that ordinarily appear in prepared forms imposed
by hotel keepers on guests for their signature.
The New Civil Code is explicit that the responsibility of the hotelkeeper shall extend to loss of, or injury to, the personal property
of the guests even if caused by servants or employees of the
keepers of hotels or inns as well as by strangers, except as it
may proceed from any force majeure.41 It is the loss
through force majeure that may spare the hotel-keeper from
liability. In the case at bar, there is no showing that the act of the
thief or robber was done with the use of arms or through an
irresistible force to qualify the same as force majeure.

In the case at bar, the responsibility of securing the safety

deposit box was shared not only by the guest himself but also by
the management since two keys are necessary to open the
safety deposit box. Without the assistance of hotel employees,
the loss would not have occurred. Thus, Tropicana was guilty of
concurrent negligence in allowing Tan, who was not the
registered guest, to open the safety deposit box of McLoughlin,
even assuming that the latter was also guilty of negligence in
allowing another person to use his key. To rule otherwise would
result in undermining the safety of the safety deposit boxes in
hotels for the management will be given imprimatur to allow any
person, under the pretense of being a family member or a visitor
of the guest, to have access to the safety deposit box without
fear of any liability that will attach thereafter in case such person
turns out to be a complete stranger. This will allow the hotel to
evade responsibility for any liability incurred by its employees in
conspiracy with the guest's relatives and visitors.

Judicial Deposit
Art. 2005 A judicial deposit or sequestration takes place when an
attachment or seizure of property in litigation is ordered.
Art. 2006 Movable as well as immovable property may be the object
of sequestration.
Art. 2007 The depositary of property or objects sequestrated cannot be
relieved of his responsibility until the controversy which gave rise
thereto has come to an end, unless the court so orders.
Art. 2008 The depositary of property sequestrated is bound to comply,
with respect to the same, with all the obligations of a good father of a
family.
Art. 2009 - As to matters not provided for in this Code, judicial
sequestration shall be governed by the Rules of Court.