1.
MINA VS PASCUAL – pajuyao vs ca, 2004
1913 case
The new civil code took effect on
Strictly gratuitous – so that when money, good or credit or something is given as consideration
for the use of the thing, it is no longer commodatum.
As to period, generally, it should be with a period. But the code under Art 1947 provides for two
instances when a period for the use of the thing is specified but still considered a contract of
commodatum, a special one called precarium.
The defendants agreed on the fact that the plaintiffs are the owners of the lot.
As respects this action for recovery, this Supreme Court finds:
1. That it is a fact admitted by the litigating parties, both in this and in the previous suit, that
Andres Fontanilla, the defendants' predecessor in interest, erected the warehouse on the lot, some
thirty years ago, with the explicit consent of his brother Francisco Fontanilla, the plaintiff's
predecessor in interest.
2. That it also appears to be an admitted fact that the plaintiffs and the defendants are the
coowners of the warehouse.
3. That it is a fact explicitly admitted in the agreement, that neither Andres Fontanilla nor his
successors paid any consideration or price whatever for the use of the lot occupied by the said
building; whence it is, perhaps, that both parties have denominated that use a commodatum.
But, although both litigating parties may have agreed in their idea of the commodatum, on
account of its not being, as indeed it is not, a question of fact but of law, yet that denomination
given by them to the use of the lot granted by Francisco Fontanilla to his brother, Andres
Fontanilla, is not acceptable. Contracts are not to be interpreted in conformity with the name that
the parties thereto agree to give them, but must be construed, duly considering their constitutive
elements, as they are defined and denominated by law.
By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to the other, either anything not perishable, in
order that the latter may use it during the certain period and return it to the former, in which case
it is calledcommodatum . . . (art. 1740, Civil Code).
It is, therefore, an essential feature of the commodatum that the use of the thing belonging to
another shall for a certain period. Francisco Fontanilla did not fix any definite period or time
during which Andres Fontanilla could have the use of the lot whereon the latter was to erect a
stone warehouse of considerable value, and so it is that for the past thirty years of the lot has been
used by both Andres and his successors in interest
Pajuyo purchased the rights over a property from Pedro Perez. Thereafter, he constructed a house
and he and his family lived there. Later, Pajuyo agreed to let Guevarra live in the house for free
provided that Guevarra maintain cleanliness and orderliness of the house. They also agreed that
Guevarra should leave upon demand. But when Pajuyo later told Guevarra that he needed the
house, Guevarra refused, hence an ejectment case was filed.
C2. atholic vicar
Private respondents were able to prove that their predecessors' house was borrowed by petitioner
Vicar after the church and the convent were destroyed. They never asked for the return of the
house, but when they allowed its free use, they became bailors in commodatum and the petitioner
the bailee. The bailees' failure to return the subject matter of commodatum to the bailor did not
mean adverse possession on the part of the borrower. The bailee held in trust the property subject
matter of commodatum. The adverse claim of petitioner came only in 1951 when it declared the
lots for taxation purposes. The action of petitioner Vicar by such adverse claim could not ripen
into title by way of ordinary acquisitive prescription because of the absence of just title.
The Court of Appeals found that the predecessors-in-interest and private respondents were
possessors under claim of ownership in good faith from 1906; that petitioner Vicar was only a
bailee in commodatum; and that the adverse claim and repudiation of trust came only in 1951.
De los santos vs jarra
From the foregoing it may be logically inferred that the carabaos loaned or given on
commodatum to the now deceased Magdaleno Jimenea were ten in number; that they, or at any
rate the six surviving ones, have not been returned to the owner thereof, Felix de los Santos, and
that it is not true that the latter sold to the former three carabaos that the purchaser was already
using; therefore, as the said six carabaos were not the property of the deceased nor of any of his
descendants, it is the duty of the administratrix of the estate to return them or indemnify the
owner for their value.
The Civil Code, in dealing with loans in general, from which generic denomination the specific
one of commodatum is derived, establishes prescriptions in relation to the last-mentioned contract
by the following articles:
ART. 1740. By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to the other, either anything not
perishable, in order that the latter may use it during a certain period and return it to the former, in
which case it is called commodatum, or money or any other perishable thing, under the condition
to return an equal amount of the same kind and quality, in which case it is merely called a loan.
Commodatum is essentially gratuitous.
A simple loan may be gratuitous, or made under a stipulation to pay interest.
ART. 1741. The bailee acquires retains the ownership of the thing loaned. The bailee acquires the
use thereof, but not its fruits; if any compensation is involved, to be paid by the person requiring
the use, the agreement ceases to be a commodatum.
ART. 1742. The obligations and rights which arise from the commodatum pass to the heirs of
both contracting parties, unless the loan has been in consideration for the person of the bailee, in
which case his heirs shall not have the right to continue using the thing loaned.
The carabaos delivered to be used not being returned by the defendant upon demand, there is no
doubt that she is under obligation to indemnify the owner thereof by paying him their value.
Article 1101 of said code reads:
Those who in fulfilling their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who
in any manner whatsoever act in contravention of the stipulations of the same, shall be subjected
to indemnify for the losses and damages caused thereby.
The obligation of the bailee or of his successors to return either the thing loaned or its value, is
sustained by the supreme tribunal of Sapin. In its decision of March 21, 1895, it sets out with
precision the legal doctrine touching commodatum as follows:
Although it is true that in a contract of commodatum the bailor retains the ownership of the thing
loaned, and at the expiration of the period, or after the use for which it was loaned has been
accomplished, it is the imperative duty of the bailee to return the thing itself to its owner, or to
pay him damages if through the fault of the bailee the thing should have been lost or injured, it is
clear that where public securities are involved, the trial court, in deferring to the claim of the
bailor that the amount loaned be returned him by the bailee in bonds of the same class as those
which constituted the contract, thereby properly applies law 9 of title 11 of partida 5.
