Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    107.014 - Quintos & Ansaldo v. Beck (1939) - Digest PDF

    Uploaded by

    Karl Salvador

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    107.014 - Quintos & Ansaldo v. Beck (1939) - Digest PDF

    Uploaded by

    Karl Salvador
    12 views3 pages

    Original Title

    107.014_Quintos & Ansaldo v. Beck (1939)_Digest.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    12 views3 pages

    107.014 - Quintos & Ansaldo v. Beck (1939) - Digest PDF

    Uploaded by

    Karl Salvador

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Quintos & Ansaldo v.

    Beck (1939) Karl Salvador


    Law 107 – Credit Transactions A2025

    Case Name Quintos & Ansaldo v. Beck (1939)

    Topic Loan > Commodatum

    Case No. | Date G.R. No. 46240 | November 3, 1939

    Petitioner/s Margarita Quintos and Angel A. Ansaldo

    Respondent/s Beck

    Ponente Imperial, J.

    Case Summary

    The plaintiff gratuitously granted to the defendant the use of the furniture, subject to the
    condition that the defendant would return them upon demand. After selling the property,
    the plaintiff asked for the return of the furniture. The defendant reasoned that he could not
    give up some of the furniture because he will be using them until the lease expires. The
    plaintiff refused to get the furniture since the defendant declined to make delivery of all of
    them. Before vacating the house, the defendant deposited with the Sheriff all the furniture
    belonging to the plaintiff. The CFI ordered the defendant to return the furniture to the
    plaintiff, but held that the return will be under the plaintiff’s expense.

    W/N the CFI erred when it held that the plaintiff failed to comply with her
    obligation to get the furniture when it was offered to her: Yes

    The contract entered into between the parties is a commodatum because the plaintiff
    gratuitously granted the use of the furniture to the defendant, reserving for herself its
    ownership. The SC held that the CFI erred when it held that the plaintiff failed to comply
    with her obligation to get the furniture when they were offered to her. The defendant was
    bound to return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latter's demand, hence the defendant
    should return all of them to the plaintiff at the her residence or house. The defendant did
    not comply with this obligation when he merely placed them at the disposal of the plaintiff,
    retaining for his benefit the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps. Also, since the
    defendant voluntarily undertook the return of all the furniture upon the plaintiff’s demand,
    the CFI could not legally compel the plaintiff to bear the expenses occasioned by the deposit
    of the furniture at the defendant's behest.

    Decision

    This is a summarized version of the dispositive portion, interpreting the decision of the case
    in sentence form.

    Doctrine

    • Art. 1933, NCC (formerly Art. 1740 and 1741, Old Civil Code). Article 1933. By
    the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not
    consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it, in which
    case the contract is called a commodatum; or money or other consumable thing, upon

    Version 3.0 Page 1 of 3


    Quintos & Ansaldo v. Beck (1939) Karl Salvador
    Law 107 – Credit Transactions A2025

    the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid, in which
    case the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum.
    Commodatum is essentially gratuitous.
    Simple loan may be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay interest.
    In commodatum the bailor retains the ownership of the thing loaned, while in simple
    loan, ownership passes to the borrower. (1740a)

    Relevant Facts

    • Defendant Beck was a tenant of the plaintiffs.


    • Upon the novation of the contract of lease, the plaintiff gratuitously granted to the
    defendant the use of the furniture, subject to the condition that the defendant would
    return them to the plaintiff upon the latter's demand.
    • The plaintiff sold the property to the Lopezes. They notified the defendant of the
    conveyance, giving him sixty days to vacate the premises. The plaintiff also required
    the defendant to return all the furniture transferred to him for his use.
    • The defendant answered that she may call for them in the house where they are found.
    • The defendant later informed the plaintiff that he could not give up the 3 gas heaters
    and the 4 electric lamps because he will use them until the lease expires.
    • The plaintiff refused to get the furniture in view of the fact that the defendant had
    declined to make delivery of all of them.
    • Before vacating the house, the defendant deposited with the Sheriff all the furniture
    belonging to the plaintiff. They are now in a warehouse in the custody of the Sheriff.
    • CFI: The CFI ordered:
    o The defendant return the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps found in
    the possession of the Sheriff;
    o That the plaintiff call for the other furniture from the said Sheriff of Manila at
    her own expense; and,
    o The fees which the sheriff may charge for the deposit of the furniture be paid
    pro rata by both parties, without pronouncement as to the costs

    Issue/s, Held and Ratio

    1. W/N the CFI erred when it held that the plaintiff failed to Yes
    comply with her obligation to get the furniture when it was
    offered to her:

    The contract entered into between the parties is a commodatum


    • The contract entered into between the parties is a commodatum.
    o Under it, the plaintiff gratuitously granted the use of the furniture to the
    defendant, reserving for herself its ownership

    Version 3.0 Page 2 of 3


    Quintos & Ansaldo v. Beck (1939) Karl Salvador
    Law 107 – Credit Transactions A2025

    • The CFI erred when it held that the plaintiff failed to comply with her obligation to get
    the furniture when they were offered to her.
    o The defendant was bound to return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the
    latter's demand. This means that the defendant should return all of them to the
    plaintiff at the her residence or house.
    o The defendant did not comply with this obligation when he merely placed them
    at the disposal of the plaintiff, retaining for his benefit the three gas heaters and
    the four electric lamps.
    • Also, since the defendant voluntarily undertook the return of all the furniture upon the
    plaintiff’s demand, the CFI could not legally compel the plaintiff to bear the expenses
    occasioned by the deposit of the furniture at the defendant's behest.
    o The defendant, as bailee, was not entitled to place the furniture on deposit; nor
    was the plaintiff under a duty to accept the offer to return the furniture, because
    the defendant wanted to retain the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps.
    • The SC held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the payment of her proposed value of
    the furniture in case of the defendant unable to return them
    o The defendant has neither agreed to nor admitted the correctness of the value.
    o Should the defendant fail to deliver some of the furniture, the value thereof
    should be later determined by the trial Court through evidence which the
    parties may desire to present.
    • The costs in both instances should be borne by the defendant because the plaintiff is
    the prevailing party
    o The defendant was the one who breached the contract of commodatum, and
    without any reason he refused to return and deliver all the furniture upon the
    plaintiff's demand.
    o The defendant is liable to pay the legal expenses and other judicial costs.

    Ruling

    The appealed judgment is modified and the defendant is ordered to return and deliver to the
    plaintiff, in the residence or house of the latter, all the furniture described in paragraph 3 of
    the stipulation of facts Exhibit A. The expenses which may be occasioned by the delivery to
    and deposit of the furniture with the Sheriff shall be for the account of the defendant. The
    defendant shall pay the costs in both instances. So ordered.

    Version 3.0 Page 3 of 3

    You might also like