Lex Rex Ph

Quintos vs. Beck Digest

Lessons: (1) The non-complying party is chiefly responsible to shoulder the expenses of returning the borrowed item; (2) A bailee must return all the things he loaned to the bailor, and not just “some of the things” and “to other persons.”

Facts

Beck was the tenant of Quintos and Ansalado’s house in MH Del Pilar Street. In 1936, Quintos et al gratuitously granted to Beck the use of the furniture through a contract, with the condition to return it upon Quintos’ demand. Quintos et al then sold the house to Maria Lopez et al and notified Beck to vacate within 60 days and demanded the return of the furniture. Quintos made several demands but in Nov. 5, Beck refused to deliver several items (heater and lamps) on the ground that the lease hasn’t expired yet, hence, Quintos refused to take all furniture. At the end of 60 days (Nov 15), before vacating the house, Beck deposited all the furniture with the Sheriff. 

Issue and Ruling:

Should Beck bear the cost of getting the furniture from Sheriff’s warehouse to Quintos’ residence? Yes.

The contract is one of commodatum, and Beck is under obligation to return all of the furniture to Quintos’ residence upon the latter’s demand and not just some of them. When Beck withheld several furniture, he did not comply with this obligation. The Court cannot compel Quintos to bear the expenses in the deposit of the furniture with the Sheriff’s warehouse because it was done at the behest of Beck. As a bailee, Beck is not entitled to deposit with the Sheriff, nor was Quintos entitled to accept “some furniture” because Beck withheld several of them. 

Is Quintos entitled to the value of the furniture because of Beck’s inability to return some as expressed under paragraph 6 of their stipulation? No, because Quintos did not agree or admit the correctness of the valuation. Should Beck fail to deliver, it should be determined by the trial court through evidence presented by the parties. 

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

Jocson v. CA Digest

Jocson vs. CA 170 SCRA 333G.R. No. L-55322. February 16, 1989Full Text Link Complete Names of PartiesMOISES JOCSON, petitioner,vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AGUSTINA JOCSON-VASQUEZ, ERNESTO VASQUEZ,

Read More »

Faith

The purpose of including such provision in our [laws] is to harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people – Republic v

Read More »

Bad Faith

It is factual and evidentiary. It does not mean bad judgment or negligence because it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious

Read More »
en_USEnglish