You are on page 1of 1

G.R. No.

L-6913 November 21, 1912


THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO, plaintiff-appellee
vs.
GREGORIO DE LA PENA, administrator of the estate of Father Agustin de la
Pena, defendant-appellant
Topic: Obligations of a depositor

3.

4.
Doctrine: The fact that he, in possession of such trust funds, placed the trust fund in
the bank in his personal account 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; hence, it did not make
him a debtor who must respond at all hazards.
Facts:
1. Petitioner RC Bishop was the trustee of a charitable bequest (disposition in
a will or pamana) to construct a leper hospital and that respondent Father
Agustin was a representative to receive such bequest.
2. 1898: Records of Father de la Pena showed that he had on hand the sum of
P6,641, collected by him for such charitable purpose. He then deposited
P19,000 in his PERSONAL account in Hongkong and Shanghai Bank.
3. During the war, Father de la Pena was arrested for allegedly being an
insurgent and the military alleged that the funds he collected are for
revolutionary purposes; hence, they confiscated the sum respondent
deposited. Money was turned over to the Government.
4. *supplied by author bc not indicated in the case* RC Bishop filed a suit to
recover P6,641. De la Pena
5. CFI ruled in favor of RC Bishop, ordering De la Pena to pay such sum, with
interest.
Issue: W/N the P6,641 of trust funds were included in the P19,000 that Father de la
Pena deposited
Held: Yes. They were a part of the funds.
1. In this time, there was no exact counter part of the law of trusts in Spanish
law; hence, the chapter of Obligations under the Civil Code will govern.
2. Accdg. to CC, a person obliged to give something is also bound to
preserve it with diligence pertaining to a good father of a family. However,
CC also provides that no one shall be liable for events which could not be
foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the exception

5.

6.

7.

of the cases expressly mentioned in the law, or those in which the obligation
so declares.
By placing the money in the bank, and mixing it with his personal funds, De
la Pena 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 money at all hazards.
If the money had been forcibly taken from his pocket or from his house by
the military forces during the war, he would be exempt from responsibility.
The fact that he, in possession of such trust funds, placed the trust fund in
the bank in his personal account 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; hence, it did not make him a debtor who must respond at all
hazards.
In addition, a discussion about whether he was negligent in depositing it in
his personal account, instead of keeping it at home or depositing it in a
separate account as trustee, is not substantial.
a. There is no law prohibiting him from depositing such and no law
imposing more responsibility in case of such deposit.
b. While it may be true the one who is under obligation is bound to
take all reasonable means and measures to prevent, or if
unavoidable, to temper effects, he should not be held liable for
being negligent in choosing two equally legal means (depositing it
or keeping it at home)
Hence, Father de la Pena is not responsible for the loss of RC Bishop
because of the confiscation of the US Army of Father de la Pena during the
war.

JUDGMENT OF CFI IS REVERSED. DE LA PENA WON.


Authors Note: There is a dissenting opinion which cited US v. Thomas which stated
that:
Trustees are only bound to exercise the same care and solicitude with
regard to the trust property which they would exercise with regard to their own. Xxx
They are not liable for a loss by theft without their fault. But this exemption ceases
when they mix trust-money with their own, whereby it loses its identity, and they
become mere debtors.

You might also like