G.R. No.

L-17474 October 25, 1962

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
!OE ". B#GT#, defendant,
FELICI$#$ %. B#GT#, #&'()(*tr+tr(, o- t.e I)te*t+te E*t+te /e-t b0 t.e /+te !o*e ". B+1t+*, petitioner-appellant.
D. T. Reyes, Liaison and Associates for petitioner-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
P#$ILL#, J.:
The Court of Appeals certified this case to this Court because only questions of law are raised.
On 8 May 1!8 "ose #. $a%tas borrowed fro& the 'epublic of the (hilippines throu%h the $ureau of Ani&al )ndustry three bulls* a
'ed +indhi with a boo, value of (1,1-..!., a $ha%nari, of (1,/01.2. and a +ahiniwal, of (-!!.!., for a period of one year fro& 8
May 1!8 to - May 1! for breedin% purposes sub3ect to a %overn&ent char%e of breedin% fee of 114 of the boo, value of the bulls.
5pon the e6piration on - May 1! of the contract, the borrower as,ed for a renewal for another period of one year. 7owever, the
+ecretary of A%riculture and 8atural 'esources approved a renewal thereof of only one bull for another year fro& 8 May 1! to -
May 121 and requested the return of the other two. On 02 March 121 "ose #. $a%tas wrote to the 9irector of Ani&al )ndustry that
he would pay the value of the three bulls. On 1- October 121 he reiterated his desire to buy the& at a value with a deduction of
yearly depreciation to be approved by the Auditor :eneral. On 1 October 121 the 9irector of Ani&al )ndustry advised hi& that the
boo, value of the three bulls could not be reduced and that they either be returned or their boo, value paid not later than /1 October
121. "ose #. $a%tas failed to pay the boo, value of the three bulls or to return the&. +o, on 01 9ece&ber 121 in the Court of ;irst
)nstance of Manila the 'epublic of the (hilippines co&&enced an action a%ainst hi& prayin% that he be ordered to return the three
bulls loaned to hi& or to pay their boo, value in the total su& of (/,0!1.!2 and the unpaid breedin% fee in the su& of (1..0, both
with interests, and costs< and that other 3ust and equitable relief be %ranted in =civil 8o. 10818>.
On 2 "uly 121 "ose #. $a%tas, throu%h counsel 8avarro, 'osete and Manalo, answered that because of the bad peace and order
situation in Ca%ayan #alley, particularly in the barrio of $a%%ao, and of the pendin% appeal he had ta,en to the +ecretary of
A%riculture and 8atural 'esources and the (resident of the (hilippines fro& the refusal by the 9irector of Ani&al )ndustry to deduct
fro& the boo, value of the bulls correspondin% yearly depreciation of 84 fro& the date of acquisition, to which depreciation the
Auditor :eneral did not ob3ect, he could not return the ani&als nor pay their value and prayed for the dis&issal of the co&plaint.
After hearin%, on /1 "uly 12. the trial court render 3ud%&ent ?
. . . sentencin% the latter =defendant> to pay the su& of (/,.02.1 the total value of the three bulls plus the breedin% fees in the
a&ount of (.0..1- with interest on both su&s of =at> the le%al rate fro& the filin% of this co&plaint and costs.
On October 128 the plaintiff &oved e6 parte for a writ of e6ecution which the court %ranted on 18 October and issued on 11
8ove&ber 128. On 0 9ece&ber 128 %ranted an e6-parte &otion filed by the plaintiff on 8ove&ber 128 for the appoint&ent of a
special sheriff to serve the writ outside Manila. Of this order appointin% a special sheriff, on . 9ece&ber 128, ;elicidad M. $a%tas,
the survivin% spouse of the defendant "ose $a%tas who died on 0/ October 121 and as ad&inistratri6 of his estate, was notified. On -
"anuary 12 she file a &otion alle%in% that on 0. "une 120 the two bull +indhi and $ha%nari were returned to the $ureau Ani&al of
)ndustry and that so&eti&e in 8ove&ber 128 the third bull, the +ahiniwal, died fro& %unshot wound inflicted durin% a 7u, raid on
7acienda ;elicidad )ntal, and prayin% that the writ of e6ecution be quashed and that a writ of preli&inary in3unction be issued. On /1
"anuary 12 the plaintiff ob3ected to her &otion. On . ;ebruary 12 she filed a reply thereto. On the sa&e day, . ;ebruary, the
Court denied her &otion. 7ence, this appeal certified by the Court of Appeals to this Court as stated at the be%innin% of this opinion.
)t is true that on 0. "une 120 "ose M. $a%tas, "r., son of the appellant by the late defendant, returned the +indhi and $ha%nari bulls to
'o&an 'e&orin, +uperintendent of the 8#$ +tation, $ureau of Ani&al )ndustry, $ayo&bon%, 8ueva #i@caya, as evidenced by a
&e&orandu& receipt si%ned by the latter =A6hibit 0>. That is why in its ob3ection of /1 "anuary 12 to the appellantBs &otion to
quash the writ of e6ecution the appellee prays Cthat another writ of e6ecution in the su& of (82.2/ be issued a%ainst the estate of
defendant deceased "ose #. $a%tas.C +he cannot be held liable for the two bulls which already had been returned to and received by
the appellee.
The appellant contends that the +ahiniwal bull was accidentally ,illed durin% a raid by the 7u, in 8ove&ber 12/ upon the
surroundin% barrios of 7acienda ;elicidad )ntal, $a%%ao, Ca%ayan, where the ani&al was ,ept, and that as such death was due to force
majeure she is relieved fro& the duty of returnin% the bull or payin% its value to the appellee. The contention is without &erit. The
loan by the appellee to the late defendant "ose #. $a%tas of the three bulls for breedin% purposes for a period of one year fro& 8 May
1!8 to - May 1!, later on renewed for another year as re%ards one bull, was sub3ect to the pay&ent by the borrower of breedin% fee
of 114 of the boo, value of the bulls. The appellant contends that the contract was commodatum and that, for that reason, as the
appellee retained ownership or title to the bull it should suffer its loss due to force majeure. A contract ofcommodatum is essentially
%ratuitous.
1
)f the breedin% fee be considered a co&pensation, then the contract would be a lease of the bull. 5nder article 1.-1 of the
Civil Code the lessee would be sub3ect to the responsibilities of a possessor in bad faith, because she had continued possession of the
bull after the e6piry of the contract. And even if the contract be commodatum, still the appellant is liable, because article 1!0 of the
Civil Code provides that a bailee in a contract of commodatum ?
. . . is liable for loss of the thin%s, even if it should be throu%h a fortuitous event*
=0> )f he ,eeps it lon%er than the period stipulated . . .
=/> )f the thin% loaned has been delivered with appraisal of its value, unless there is a stipulation e6e&ptin% the bailee fro&
responsibility in case of a fortuitous event<
The ori%inal period of the loan was fro& 8 May 1!8 to - May 1!. The loan of one bull was renewed for another period of one year
to end on 8 May 121. $ut the appellant ,ept and used the bull until 8ove&ber 12/ when durin% a 7u, raid it was ,illed by stray
bullets. ;urther&ore, when lent and delivered to the deceased husband of the appellant the bulls had each an appraised boo, value, to
with* the +indhi, at (1,1-..!., the $ha%nari at (1,/01.2. and the +ahiniwal at (-!!.!.. )t was not stipulated that in case of loss of the
bull due to fortuitous event the late husband of the appellant would be e6e&pt fro& liability.
The appellantBs contention that the de&and or prayer by the appellee for the return of the bull or the pay&ent of its value bein% a
&oney clai& should be presented or filed in the intestate proceedin%s of the defendant who died on 0/ October 121, is not alto%ether
without &erit. 7owever, the clai& that his civil personality havin% ceased to e6ist the trial court lost 3urisdiction over the case a%ainst
hi&, is untenable, because section 1- of 'ule / of the 'ules of Court provides that ?
After a party dies and the clai& is not thereby e6tin%uished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the le%al representative
of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased, within a period of thirty =/1> days, or within such ti&e as
&ay be %ranted. . . .
and after the defendantBs death on 0/ October 121 his counsel failed to co&ply with section 1. of 'ule / which provides that ?
Dhenever a party to a pendin% case dies . . . it shall be the duty of his attorney to infor& the court pro&ptly of such death . . .
and to %ive the na&e and residence of the e6ecutory ad&inistrator, %uardian, or other le%al representative of the
deceased . . . .
The notice by the probate court and its publication in the Vo de !anila that ;elicidad M. $a%tas had been issue letters of
ad&inistration of the estate of the late "ose $a%tas and that Call persons havin% clai&s for &onopoly a%ainst the deceased "ose #.
$a%tas, arisin% fro& contract e6press or i&plied, whether the sa&e be due, not due, or contin%ent, for funeral e6penses and e6penses
of the last sic,ness of the said decedent, and 3ud%&ent for &onopoly a%ainst hi&, to file said clai&s with the Cler, of this Court at the
City 7all $ld%., 7i%hway 2!, Eue@on City, within si6 =.> &onths fro& the date of the first publication of this order, servin% a copy
thereof upon the afore&entioned ;elicidad M. $a%tas, the appointed ad&inistratri6 of the estate of the said deceased,C is not a notice
to the court and the appellee who were to be notified of the defendantBs death in accordance with the above-quoted rule, and there was
no reason for such failure to notify, because the attorney who appeared for the defendant was the sa&e who represented the
ad&inistratri6 in the special proceedin%s instituted for the ad&inistration and settle&ent of his estate. The appellee or its attorney or
representative could not be e6pected to ,now of the death of the defendant or of the ad&inistration proceedin%s of his estate instituted
in another court that if the attorney for the deceased defendant did not notify the plaintiff or its attorney of such death as required by
the rule.
As the appellant already had returned the two bulls to the appellee, the estate of the late defendant is only liable for the su& of
(82../, the value of the bull which has not been returned to the appellee, because it was ,illed while in the custody of the
ad&inistratri6 of his estate. This is the a&ount prayed for by the appellee in its ob3ection on /1 "anuary 12 to the &otion filed on -
"anuary 12 by the appellant for the quashin% of the writ of e6ecution.
+pecial proceedin%s for the ad&inistration and settle&ent of the estate of the deceased "ose #. $a%tas havin% been instituted in the
Court of ;irst )nstance of 'i@al =E-011>, the &oney 3ud%&ent rendered in favor of the appellee cannot be enforced by &eans of a writ
of e6ecution but &ust be presented to the probate court for pay&ent by the appellant, the ad&inistratri6 appointed by the court.
ACCO'9)8:FG, the writ of e6ecution appealed fro& is set aside, without pronounce&ent as to costs.