REPUBLIC v.

BAGTAS
Padilla, J. 25 Oct 1962 GR No. L-17474
Doctrine A commodatum is gratuitous. If something is lent to a person in consideration of a thing, it is instead a lease.
Summary Jose Bagtas loaned three bulls from the Bureau of Animal Industry for breeding purposes. He did not return one, and it died. His estate
(because he died in the middle of the controversy) was held liable for the loss both under the bailee in commodatum, and assuming
arguendo it was not a commodatum, he was a debtor in delay of performance regardless of the kind of obligation the contract was.
Facts Antecedent facts:
Jose Bagtas borrowed three bulls: a Red Sindhi, a Bhagnari, and a Sahiniwal with book values of P1,176.46, P1,320.56, and
P744.46, respectively, for breeding purposes. He was to use them for a year, subject to a breeding fee of 10% of their book
value.
Upon expiration he asked for a renewal from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Only one bull was renewed,
and he was asked to return the other two. He proposed to purchase all three, less depreciation, but this offer was also rejected.
The government advised him to return the bulls or pay the entire book value of the three bulls. Upon Bagtas failure to perform
either one, a suit was filed against him to comply with either option.
The CFI ordered him to pay, and a writ of execution was issued.
His wife filed a motion praying to quash the execution, alleging that the Sindhi and Bhagnari were returned (this was later
confirmed). However, the Sahiniwal was shot in a Hukbalahap raid (the bulls were in Cagayan Valley). The motion was denied in
the CFI as well as in the CA, hence this petition.
Ratio/Issues
I. Whether Mrs. Bagtas was liable to pay for the last bull (YES)

(1) Bagtas: the death of the bull was due to force majeure; since this was a contract of commodatum, the Republic retained
possession of the bull and should suffer the loss.
(2) SC: there was a breeding charge, therefore it could not be a commodatum, which is essentially gratuitous. If the breeding
fee were considered as compensation, then this was a contract of lease. Bagtas is a possessor in bad faith and responsible
for fortuitous events (remember that the 1-year contract had already expired).
Assuming arguendo that it was a commodatum, the appellant is still liable. The bailee is liable for the loss of things,
even if it should be through a fortuitous event, inter alia, if he keeps it longer than the period stipulated, or if the
thing loaned had been delivered with appraisal of its value, unless there is a stipulation exempting the bailee from
responsibility in case of a fortuitous event (there was none mentioned).

II. Whether Mr. Bagtas was still liable to pay even if he was already dead (YES)

(1) SC: A partys civil personality does not cease to exist, and the trial court has not lost jurisdiction over him 1 (lol hello CivPro)
(2) While Bagtas claims that she publicized her husbands death in a newspaper, calling on his creditors to appear and file their
claims, does not count as proper notice to the court and to the appellee.
Held Writ of execution set aside. Republics claim to be presented to the probate court and paid by the appellant in special proceedings of the
deceaseds estate.
Prepared by: Job de Leon [Credit | Prof. Vasquez]

1
Sec. 16, Rule 3, par 1-2. Death of party; duty of counsel. - Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby
extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to
give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a
ground for disciplinary action.

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

This is the current rule. The case actually cites Sections 16-17, Rule 3, which the 1997 Rules have amended.