Facts:
The plaintiff
brought this action to compel the defendant to return her certain furniture
which she lent him for his use. She appealed from the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of Manila which ordered that the defendant return to her the
three has heaters and the four electric lamps found in the possession of the
Sheriff of said city, that she call for the other furniture from the said
sheriff of Manila at her own expense, and that 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.
The defendant
was a tenant of the plaintiff and as such occupied the latter's house on M. H.
del Pilar street, No. 1175. On January 14, 1936, upon the novation of the
contract of lease between the plaintiff and the defendant, the former
gratuitously granted to the latter the use of the furniture described in the
third paragraph of the stipulation of facts, subject to the condition that the
defendant would return them to the plaintiff upon the latter's demand. The
plaintiff sold the property to Maria Lopez and Rosario Lopez and on September
14, 1936, these three notified the defendant of the conveyance, giving him
sixty days to vacate the premises under one of the clauses of the contract of
lease. There after the plaintiff required the defendant to return all the
furniture transferred to him for them in the house where they were found. On
November 5, 1936, the defendant, through another person, wrote to the plaintiff
reiterating that she may call for the furniture in the ground floor of the
house. On the 7th of the same month, the defendant wrote another letter to the
plaintiff informing her that he could not give up the three gas heaters and the
four electric lamps because he would use them until the 15th of the same month
when the lease in due to expire. The plaintiff refused to get the furniture in
view of the fact that the defendant had declined to make delivery of all of
them. On November 15th, before vacating the house, the defendant deposited with
the Sheriff all the furniture belonging to the plaintiff and they are now on
deposit in the warehouse situated at No. 1521, Rizal Avenue, in the custody of
the said sheriff.
Issue:
Whether or not
the defendant complied with his obligation to return the furniture upon the
plaintiff’s demand.
Held:
The contract
entered into between the parties is one of commadatum, because under it the
plaintiff gratuitously granted the use of the furniture to the defendant,
reserving for herself the ownership thereof; by this contract the defendant
bound himself to return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latters
demand. The obligation voluntarily assumed by the defendant to return the
furniture upon the plaintiff's demand, means that he should return all of them
to the plaintiff at the latter's 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 eletric
lamps. The provisions of article 1169 of the Civil Code cited by counsel for
the parties are not squarely applicable. The trial court, therefore, erred when
it came to the legal conclusion that the plaintiff failed to comply with her
obligation to get the furniture when they were offered to her.
As the
defendant had voluntarily undertaken to return all the furniture to the
plaintiff, upon the latter's demand, the Court could not legally compel her to
bear the expenses occasioned by the deposit of the furniture at the defendant's
behest. The latter, 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment