Republic of the Philippines vs.

Jose Bagtas, Felicidad Bagtas

Facts: On May 8, 1948, Jose Bagtas borrowed from the Bureau of Animal Industry 3 bulls for 1
year for breeding uroses, sub!e"t to breeding fee for 1#$ of the boo% &alue of the bulls' (on
the e)iration of the "ontra"t, Bagtas as%ed for a renewal for another year' *he renewal granted
was only for 1 bull' Bagtas offered to buy the bulls at boo% &alue less dere"iation, but the
Bureau told him that he should either return the bulls or ay for their boo% &alue' Bagtas failed
to ay the boo% &alue, and so the +eubli" "ommen"ed an a"tion with the ,-I Manila to order
the return of the bulls of the ayment of boo% &alue' -eli"idad Bagtas, the sur&i&ing souse and
administratri) of the de"edent.s estate, stated that the / bulls ha&e already been returned in
190/, and that the remaining one died of gunshot during a 1u% raid' As regards the two bulls, is
was ro&en that they were returned and thus, there is no more obligation on the art of the
aellant' As to the bull not returned, -eli"idad "ontends that the obligation is e)tinguished
sin"e the "ontra"t is that of a "ommodatum and that the loss through fortuitous e&ent should be
borne by the owner'
Issue: 2hether, deending on the nature of the "ontra"t, the resondent is liable for the death
of the bull
Held: A "ontra"t of commodatum is essentially gratuitous' If the breeding fee be "onsidered a
"omensation, then the "ontra"t would be a lease of the bull' (nder arti"le 1341 of the ,i&il ,ode
the lessee would be sub!e"t to the resonsibilities of a ossessor in bad faith, be"ause she had
"ontinued ossession of the bull after the e)iry of the "ontra"t' And e&en if the "ontra"t be
"ommodatum, still the aellant is liable, be"ause arti"le 194/ of the ,i&il ,ode ro&ides that a
bailee in a "ontra"t of commodatum
' ' ' is liable for loss of the things, e&en if it should be through a fortuitous e&ent5
6/7 If he %ees it longer than the eriod stiulated ' ' '
637 If the thing loaned has been deli&ered with araisal of its &alue, unless there is a
stiulation e)emting the bailee from resonsibility in "ase of a fortuitous e&ent8
*he loan of one bull was renewed for another eriod of one year to end on 8 May 190#' But the
aellant %et and used the bull until 9o&ember 1903 when during a 1u% raid it was %illed by
stray bullets' -urthermore, when lent and deli&ered to the de"eased husband of the aellant
the bulls had ea"h an araised boo% &alue' It was not stiulated that in "ase of loss of the bull
due to fortuitous e&ent the late husband of the aellant would be e)emt from liability'
:e"ial ro"eedings for the administration and settlement of the estate of the de"eased Jose ;'
Bagtas ha&ing been instituted in the ,ourt of -irst Instan"e of +i<al 6=>/##7, the money
!udgment rendered in fa&or of the aellee "annot be enfor"ed by means of a writ of e)e"ution
but must be resented to the robate "ourt for ayment by the aellant, the administratri)
aointed by the "ourt'
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 expir of the contract.