Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

REPUBLIC vs BAGTAS

BAGTAS borrowed from the republic through the bureau of animal industry,
3 bulls (for breeding purposes) for a period of one year (May 8, 1948 May
7, 1949, with a 10% breeding fee based on their booked value. (bsta per
bull me value - not that important)
After one year, bagtas requested a renewal. Sec. of agri. And Natural
Resources approved the renewal only for one bull (May 8, 1949 May 7,
1950) and ordered the return of the other two. Bagtas did not return the
bulls, but instead on March 25, 1950 he offered to buy the 3 bulls.
On oct 17 1950, he reiterated his desire to buy the bulls, with deduction
due to depreciation. Sec. approved the offer, but without reduction to the
value, and not later than oct. 31, 1950. BAGTAS FAILED TO PAY. So the
republic instituted an action against bagtas, for the return of the bulls OR
payment of the value, plus the breeding fee, plus interest and damages.
1956, the RTC renderd judgment in favor of the republic, ordering bagtas to
pay. The republic sought a writ of execution. However, bagtas wife (bagtas
already died) moved to quash the writ of execution on the ground that they
already returned the 2 bulls on 1952, and the 3 rd bull died on 1953 due to a
stay bulled during a gun fight with the Huks.
ISSUE: WoN Bagtas is still liable to the whole amount of the 3 bulls.
WoN bagtas is liable to the government for the 3 rd bull that died due to a
fortuitous event.
Contention of the respondent: the contract was commodatum, thus
ownership never transferred, thus the republic bears the loss.
RULING: BAGTAS is liable only to the 3rd bull. Since bagtas returned the 2
bulls, his liability for it is extinguished.
On the second issue, bagtas is liable even if the loss was due to a
fortuitous event.
A contract ofcommodatum is essentially gratuitous. If the breeding fee be
considered a compensation, then the contract would be a lease of the bull.
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 1942
of the Civil Code provides that a bailee in a contract of commodatum
. . . is liable for loss of the things, even if it should be through a
fortuitous event:
(2) If he keeps it longer than the period stipulated . . .
The original contract was dated may 1948 to may 1949, then extended for
one year but only for one bull. So the 2nd contract is for 1949 to 1950. The
bull died 1953, way beyond the stipulations in the contract. Therefore, he is
liable for the loss.