Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-17474 October 25, 1962

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE V. BAGTAS, defendant, FELICIDAD M. BAGTAS, Administratrix of the Intestate Estate left by the late Jose V. Bagtas, petitioner-appellant. D. T. Reyes, Liaison and Associates for petitioner-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. PADILLA, J.: The Court of Appeals certified this case to this Court because only questions of law are raised. On 8 May 1948 Jose V. Bagtas borrowed from the Republic of the Philippines through the Bureau of Animal Industry three bulls: a Red Sindhi with a book value of P1,176.46, a Bhagnari, of P1,320.56 and a Sahiniwal, of P744.46, for a period of one year from 8 May 1948 to 7 May 1949 for breeding purposes subject to a government charge of breeding fee of 10% of the book value of the bulls. Upon the expiration on 7 May 1949 of the contract, the borrower asked for a renewal for another period of one year. However, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved a renewal thereof of only one bull for another year from 8 May 1949 to 7 May 1950 and requested the return of the other two. On 25 March 1950 Jose V. Bagtas wrote to the Director of Animal Industry that he would pay the value of the three bulls. On 17 October 1950 he reiterated his desire to buy them at a value with a deduction of yearly depreciation to be approved by the Auditor General. On 19 October 1950 the Director of Animal Industry advised him that the book value of the three bulls could not be reduced and that they either be returned or their book value paid not later than 31 October 1950. Jose V. Bagtas failed to pay the book value of the three bulls or to return them. So, on 20 December 1950 in the Court of First Instance of Manila the Republic of the Philippines commenced an action against him praying that he be ordered to return the three bulls loaned to him or to pay their book value in the total sum of P3,241.45 and the unpaid breeding fee in the sum of P199.62, both with interests, and costs; and that other just and equitable relief be granted in (civil No. 12818). On 5 July 1951 Jose V. Bagtas, through counsel Navarro, Rosete and Manalo, answered that because of the bad peace and order situation in Cagayan Valley, particularly in the barrio of Baggao, and of the pending appeal he had taken to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the President of the Philippines from the refusal by the Director of Animal Industry to deduct from the book value of the bulls corresponding yearly depreciation of 8%

from the date of acquisition, to which depreciation the Auditor General did not object, he could not return the animals nor pay their value and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. After hearing, on 30 July 1956 the trial court render judgment . . . sentencing the latter (defendant) to pay the sum of P3,625.09 the total value of the three bulls plus the breeding fees in the amount of P626.17 with interest on both sums of (at) the legal rate from the filing of this complaint and costs. On 9 October 1958 the plaintiff moved ex parte for a writ of execution which the court granted on 18 October and issued on 11 November 1958. On 2 December 1958 granted an ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiff on November 1958 for the appointment of a special sheriff to serve the writ outside Manila. Of this order appointing a special sheriff, on 6 December 1958, Felicidad M. Bagtas, the surviving spouse of the defendant Jose Bagtas who died on 23 October 1951 and as administratrix of his estate, was notified. On 7 January 1959 she file a motion alleging that on 26 June 1952 the two bull Sindhi and Bhagnari were returned to the Bureau Animal of Industry and that sometime in November 1958 the third bull, the Sahiniwal, died from gunshot wound inflicted during a Huk raid on Hacienda Felicidad Intal, and praying that the writ of execution be quashed and that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued. On 31 January 1959 the plaintiff objected to her motion. On 6 February 1959 she filed a reply thereto. On the same day, 6 February, the Court denied her motion. Hence, this appeal certified by the Court of Appeals to this Court as stated at the beginning of this opinion. It is true that on 26 June 1952 Jose M. Bagtas, Jr., son of the appellant by the late defendant, returned the Sindhi and Bhagnari bulls to Roman Remorin, Superintendent of the NVB Station, Bureau of Animal Industry, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, as evidenced by a memorandum receipt signed by the latter (Exhibit 2). That is why in its objection of 31 January 1959 to the appellant's motion to quash the writ of execution the appellee prays "that another writ of execution in the sum of P859.53 be issued against the estate of defendant deceased Jose V. Bagtas." She cannot be held liable for the two bulls which already had been returned to and received by the appellee. The appellant contends that the Sahiniwal bull was accidentally killed during a raid by the Huk in November 1953 upon the surrounding barrios of Hacienda Felicidad Intal, Baggao, Cagayan, where the animal was kept, and that as such death was due to force majeure she is relieved from the duty of returning the bull or paying its value to the appellee. The contention is without merit. The loan by the appellee to the late defendant Jose V. Bagtas of the three bulls for breeding purposes for a period of one year from 8 May 1948 to 7 May 1949, later on renewed for another year as regards one bull, was subject to the payment by the borrower of breeding fee of 10% of the book value of the bulls. The appellant contends that the contract was commodatum and that, for that reason, as the appellee retained ownership or title to the bull it should suffer its loss due to force majeure. A contract of commodatum is essentially gratuitous.1 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 expiry of the contract. And even if the

contract be commodatum, still the appellant is liable, because article 1942 of the Civil Code provides that a bailee in a contract of commodatum . . . is liable for loss of the things, even if it should be through a fortuitous event: (2) If he keeps it longer than the period stipulated . . . (3) If the thing loaned has been delivered with appraisal of its value, unless there is a stipulation exempting the bailee from responsibility in case of a fortuitous event; The original period of the loan was from 8 May 1948 to 7 May 1949. The loan of one bull was renewed for another period of one year to end on 8 May 1950. But the appellant kept and used the bull until November 1953 when during a Huk raid it was killed by stray bullets. Furthermore, when lent and delivered to the deceased husband of the appellant the bulls had each an appraised book value, to with: the Sindhi, at P1,176.46, the Bhagnari at P1,320.56 and the Sahiniwal at P744.46. It was not stipulated that in case of loss of the bull due to fortuitous event the late husband of the appellant would be exempt from liability. The appellant's contention that the demand or prayer by the appellee for the return of the bull or the payment of its value being a money claim should be presented or filed in the intestate proceedings of the defendant who died on 23 October 1951, is not altogether without merit. However, the claim that his civil personality having ceased to exist the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case against him, is untenable, because section 17 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that After a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice, the legal representative of the deceased to appear and to be substituted for the deceased, within a period of thirty (30) days, or within such time as may be granted. . .. and after the defendant's death on 23 October 1951 his counsel failed to comply with section 16 of Rule 3 which provides that Whenever a party to a pending case dies . . . it shall be the duty of his attorney to inform the court promptly of such death . . . and to give the name and residence of the executory administrator, guardian, or other legal representative of the deceased . . . . The notice by the probate court and its publication in the Voz de Manila that Felicidad M. Bagtas had been issue letters of administration of the estate of the late Jose Bagtas and that "all persons having claims for monopoly against the deceased Jose V. Bagtas, arising from contract express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, for funeral expenses and expenses of the last sickness of the said decedent, and judgment for monopoly against him, to file said claims with the Clerk of this Court at the City Hall Bldg., Highway 54, Quezon City, within six (6) months from the date of the first publication of this order, serving a copy thereof upon the aforementioned Felicidad M. Bagtas, the appointed administratrix of the estate of the said deceased," is not a notice to the court and the appellee who were to be notified of the defendant's

death in accordance with the above-quoted rule, and there was no reason for such failure to notify, because the attorney who appeared for the defendant was the same who represented the administratrix in the special proceedings instituted for the administration and settlement of his estate. The appellee or its attorney or representative could not be expected to know of the death of the defendant or of the administration proceedings of his estate instituted in another court that if the attorney for the deceased defendant did not notify the plaintiff or its attorney of such death as required by the rule. As the appellant already had returned the two bulls to the appellee, the estate of the late defendant is only liable for the sum of P859.63, the value of the bull which has not been returned to the appellee, because it was killed while in the custody of the administratrix of his estate. This is the amount prayed for by the appellee in its objection on 31 January 1959 to the motion filed on 7 January 1959 by the appellant for the quashing of the writ of execution. Special proceedings for the administration and settlement of the estate of the deceased Jose V. Bagtas having been instituted in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Q-200), the money judgment rendered in favor of the appellee cannot be enforced by means of a writ of execution but must be presented to the probate court for payment by the appellant, the administratrix appointed by the court. ACCORDINGLY, the writ of execution appealed from is set aside, without pronouncement as to costs. Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur. Barrera, J., concurs in the result. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-46240 November 3, 1939

MARGARITA QUINTOS and ANGEL A. ANSALDO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. BECK, defendant-appellee. Mauricio Carlos for appellants. Felipe Buencamino, Jr. for appellee.

IMPERIAL, J.:

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. In their seven assigned errors the plaintiffs contend that the trial court incorrectly applied the law: in holding that they violated the contract by not calling for all the furniture on November 5, 1936, when the defendant placed them at their disposal; in not ordering the defendant to pay them the value of the furniture in case they are not delivered; in holding that they should get all the furniture from the Sheriff at their expenses; in ordering them to pay-half of the expenses claimed by the Sheriff for the deposit of the furniture; in ruling that both parties should pay their respective legal expenses or the costs; and in denying pay their respective legal expenses or the costs; and in denying the motions for reconsideration and new trial. To dispose of the case, it is only necessary to decide whether the defendant complied with his obligation to return the furniture upon the plaintiff's demand; whether the latter is bound to bear the deposit fees thereof, and whether she is entitled to the costs of litigation.lawphi1.net 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 (clause 7 of the contract, Exhibit A; articles 1740, paragraph 1, and 1741 of the Civil Code). 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. As to the value of the furniture, we do not believe that the plaintiff is entitled to the payment thereof by the defendant in case of his inability to return some of the furniture because under paragraph 6 of the stipulation of facts, the defendant has neither agreed to nor admitted the correctness of the said value. Should the defendant fail to deliver some of the furniture, the value thereof should be latter determined by the trial Court through evidence which the parties may desire to present. The costs in both instances should be borne by the defendant because the plaintiff is the prevailing party (section 487 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The defendant was the one who breached the contract of commodatum, and without any reason he refused to return and deliver all the furniture upon the plaintiff's demand. In these circumstances, it is just and equitable that he pay the legal expenses and other judicial costs which the plaintiff would not have otherwise defrayed. The appealed judgment is modified and the defendant is ordered to return and deliver to the plaintiff, in the residence to return and deliver to the plaintiff, in the residence or house of the latter, all the furniture described in paragraph 3 of the stipulation of facts Exhibit A. The expenses which may be occasioned by the delivery to and deposit of the furniture with the Sheriff shall be for the account of the defendant. the defendant shall pay the costs in both instances. So ordered. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-8321 October 14, 1913

ALEJANDRA MINA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. RUPERTA PASCUAL, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

N. Segundo for appellants. Iigo Bitanga for appellees.

ARELLANO, C.J.: Francisco Fontanilla and Andres Fontanilla were brothers. Francisco Fontanilla acquired during his lifetime, on March 12, 1874, a lot in the center of the town of Laoag, the capital of the Province of Ilocos Norte, the property having been awarded to him through its purchase at a public auction held by the alcalde mayor of that province. The lot has a frontage of 120 meters and a depth of 15. Andres Fontanilla, with the consent of his brother Francisco, erected a warehouse on a part of the said lot, embracing 14 meters of its frontage by 11 meters of its depth. Francisco Fontanilla, the former owner of the lot, being dead, the herein plaintiffs, Alejandro Mina, et al., were recognized without discussion as his heirs. Andres Fontanilla, the former owner of the warehouse, also having died, the children of Ruperta Pascual were recognized likes without discussion, though it is not said how, and consequently are entitled to the said building, or rather, as Ruperta Pascual herself stated, to only six-sevenths of one-half of it, the other half belonging, as it appears, to the plaintiffs themselves, and the remaining one-seventh of the first one-half to the children of one of the plaintiffs, Elena de Villanueva. The fact is that the plaintiffs and the defendants are virtually, to all appearance, the owners of the warehouse; while the plaintiffs are undoubtedly, the owners of the part of the lot occupied by that building, as well as of the remainder thereof. This was the state of affairs, when, on May 6, 1909, Ruperta Pascual, as the guardian of her minor children, the herein defendants, petitioned the Curt of First Instance of Ilocos Norte for authorization to sell "the six-sevenths of the one-half of the warehouse, of 14 by 11 meters, together with its lot." The plaintiffs that is Alejandra Mina, et al. opposed the petition of Ruperta Pascual for the reason that the latter had included therein the lot occupied by the warehouse, which they claimed was their exclusive property. All this action was taken in a special proceeding in re guardianship. The plaintiffs did more than oppose Pascual's petition; they requested the court, through motion, to decide the question of the ownership of the lot before it pass upon the petition for the sale of the warehouse. But the court before determining the matter of the ownership of the lot occupied by the warehouse, ordered the sale of this building, saying: While the trial continues with respect to the ownership of the lot, the court orders the sale at public auction of the said warehouse and of the lot on which it is built, with the present boundaries of the land and condition of the building, at a price of not less than P2,890 Philippine currency . . . .

So, the warehouse, together with the lot on which it stands, was sold to Cu Joco, the other defendant in this case, for the price mentioned. The plaintiffs insisted upon a decision of the question of the ownership of the lot, and the court decided it by holding that this land belonged to the owner of the warehouse which had been built thereon thirty years before. The plaintiffs appealed and this court reversed the judgment of the lower court and held that the appellants were the owners of the lot in question. 1 When the judgment became final and executory, a writ of execution issued and the plaintiffs were given possession of the lot; but soon thereafter the trial court annulled this possession for the reason that it affected Cu Joco, who had not been a party to the suit in which that writ was served. It was then that the plaintiffs commenced the present action for the purpose of having the sale of the said lot declared null and void and of no force and effect. An agreement was had ad to the facts, the ninth paragraph of which is as follows: 9. That the herein plaintiffs excepted to the judgment and appealed therefrom to the Supreme Court which found for them by holding that they are the owners of the lot in question, although there existed and still exists a commodatum by virtue of which the guardianship (meaning the defendants) had and has the use, and the plaintiffs the ownership, of the property, with no finding concerning the decree of the lower court that ordered the sale. The obvious purport of the cause "although there existed and still exists a commodatum," etc., appears to be that it is a part of the decision of the Supreme Court and that, while finding the plaintiffs to be the owners of the lot, we recognized in principle the existence of a commodatum under which the defendants held the lot. Nothing could be more inexact. Possibly, also, the meaning of that clause is that, notwithstanding the finding made by the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs were the owners, these former and the defendants agree that there existed, and still exists, a commodatum, etc. But such an agreement would not affect the truth of the contents of the decision of this court, and the opinions held by the litigants in regard to this point could have no bearing whatever on the present decision. Nor did the decree of the lower court that ordered the sale have the least influence in our previous decision to require our making any finding in regard thereto, for, with or without that decree, the Supreme Court had to decide the ownership of the lot consistently with its titles and not in accordance with the judicial acts or proceedings had prior to the setting up of the issue in respect to the ownership of the property that was the subject of the judicial decree. What is essentially pertinent to the case is the fact that the defendant agree that the plaintiffs have the ownership, and they themselves only the use, of the said lot.

On this premise, the nullity of the sale of the lot is in all respects quite evident, whatsoever be the manner in which the sale was effected, whether judicially or extrajudicially. He who has only the use of a thing cannot validly sell the thing itself. The effect of the sale being a transfer of the ownership of the thing, it is evident that he who has only the mere use of the thing cannot transfer its ownership. The sale of a thing effected by one who is not its owner is null and void. The defendants never were the owners of the lot sold. The sale of it by them is necessarily null and void. On cannot convey to another what he has never had himself. The returns of the auction contain the following statements: I, Ruperta Pascual, the guardian of the minors, etc., by virtue of the authorization conferred upon me on the 31st of July, 1909, by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, proceeded with the sale at public auction of the six-sevenths part of the one-half of the warehouse constructed of rubble stone, etc. Whereas I, Ruperta Pascual, the guardian of the minors, etc., sold at public auction all the land and all the rights title, interest, and ownership in the said property to Cu Joco, who was the highest bidder, etc. Therefore, . . . I cede and deliver forever to the said purchaser, Cu Joco, his heirs and assigns, all the interest, ownership and inheritance rights and others that, as the guardian of the said minors, I have and may have in the said property, etc. The purchaser could not acquire anything more than the interest that might be held by a person to whom realty in possession of the vendor might be sold, for at a judicial auction nothing else is disposed of. What the minor children of Ruperta Pascual had in their possession was the ownership of the six-sevenths part of one-half of the warehouse and the use of the lot occupied by his building. This, and nothing more, could the Chinaman Cu Joco acquire at that sale: not the ownership of the lot; neither the other half, nor the remaining one-seventh of the said first half, of the warehouse. Consequently, the sale made to him of this one-seventh of one-half and the entire other half of the building was null and void, and likewise with still more reason the sale of the lot the building occupies. The purchaser could and should have known what it was that was offered for sale and what it was that he purchased. There is nothing that can justify the acquisition by the purchaser of the warehouse of the ownership of the lot that this building occupies, since the minors represented by Ruperta Pascual never were the owners of the said lot, nor were they ever considered to be such. The trial court, in the judgment rendered, held that there were no grounds for the requested annulment of the sale, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the P600 deposited with the clerk of the court as the value of the lot in question. The defendants, Ruperta Pascual and the Chinaman Cu Joco, were absolved from the complaint, without express finding as to costs.

The plaintiffs cannot be obliged to acquiesce in or allow the sale made and be compelled to accept the price set on the lot by expert appraisers, not even though the plaintiffs be considered as coowner of the warehouse. It would be much indeed that, on the ground of coownership, they should have to abide by and tolerate the sale of the said building, which point this court does not decide as it is not a question submitted to us for decision, but, as regards the sale of the lot, it is in all respects impossible to hold that the plaintiffs must abide by it and tolerate, it, and this conclusion is based on the fact that they did not give their consent (art. 1261, Civil Code), and only the contracting parties who have given it are obliged to comply (art. 1091, idem). The sole purpose of the action in the beginning was to obtain an annulment of the sale of the lot; but subsequently the plaintiffs, through motion, asked for an amendment by their complaint in the sense that the action should be deemed to be one for the recovery of possession of a lot and for the annulment of its sale. The plaintiff's petition was opposed by the defendant's attorney, but was allowed by the court; therefore the complaint seeks, after the judicial annulment of the sale of the lot, to have the defendants sentenced immediately to deliver the same to the plaintiffs. Such a finding appears to be in harmony with the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in previous suit, wherein it was held that the ownership of the lot lay in the plaintiffs, and for this reason steps were taken to give possession thereof to the defendants; but, as the purchaser Cu Joco was not a party to that suit, the present action is strictly one for recover against Cu Joco to compel him, once the sale has been annulled, to deliver the lot to its lawful owners, the plaintiffs. As respects this action for recovery, this Supreme Court finds: 1. That it is a fact admitted by the litigating parties, both in this and in the previous suit, that Andres Fontanilla, the defendants' predecessor in interest, erected the warehouse on the lot, some thirty years ago, with the explicit consent of his brother Francisco Fontanilla, the plaintiff's predecessor in interest. 2. That it also appears to be an admitted fact that the plaintiffs and the defendants are the coowners of the warehouse. 3. That it is a fact explicitly admitted in the agreement, that neither Andres Fontanilla nor his successors paid any consideration or price whatever for the use of the lot occupied by the said building; whence it is, perhaps, that both parties have denominated that use a commodatum. Upon the premise of these facts, or even merely upon that of the first of them, the sentencing of the defendants to deliver the lot to the plaintiffs does not follow as a necessary corollary of the judicial declaration of ownership made in the previous suit, nor of that of the nullity of the sale of the lot, made in the present case. The defendants do not hold lawful possession of the lot in question.1awphil.net

But, although both litigating parties may have agreed in their idea of the commodatum, on account of its not being, as indeed it is not, a question of fact but of law, yet that denomination given by them to the use of the lot granted by Francisco Fontanilla to his brother, Andres Fontanilla, is not acceptable. Contracts are not to be interpreted in conformity with the name that the parties thereto agree to give them, but must be construed, duly considering their constitutive elements, as they are defined and denominated by law. By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to the other, either anything not perishable, in order that the latter may use it during the certain period and return it to the former, in which case it is called commodatum . . . (art. 1740, Civil Code). It is, therefore, an essential feature of the commodatum that the use of the thing belonging to another shall for a certain period. Francisco Fontanilla did not fix any definite period or time during which Andres Fontanilla could have the use of the lot whereon the latter was to erect a stone warehouse of considerable value, and so it is that for the past thirty years of the lot has been used by both Andres and his successors in interest. The present contention of the plaintiffs that Cu Joco, now in possession of the lot, should pay rent for it at the rate of P5 a month, would destroy the theory of the commodatum sustained by them, since, according to the second paragraph of the aforecited article 1740, "commodatum is essentially gratuitous," and, if what the plaintiffs themselves aver on page 7 of their brief is to be believed, it never entered Francisco's mind to limit the period during which his brother Andres was to have the use of the lot, because he expected that the warehouse would eventually fall into the hands of his son, Fructuoso Fontanilla, called the adopted son of Andres, which did not come to pass for the reason that Fructuoso died before his uncle Andres. With that expectation in view, it appears more likely that Francisco intended to allow his brother Andres a surface right; but this right supposes the payment of an annual rent, and Andres had the gratuitous use of the lot. Hence, as the facts aforestated only show that a building was erected on another's ground, the question should be decided in accordance with the statutes that, thirty years ago, governed accessions to real estate, and which were Laws 41 and 42, title 28, of the third Partida, nearly identical with the provisions of articles 361 and 362 of the Civil Code. So, then, pursuant to article 361, the owner of the land on which a building is erected in good faith has a right to appropriate such edifice to himself, after payment of the indemnity prescribed in articles 453 and 454, or to oblige the builder to pay him the value of the land. Such, and no other, is the right to which the plaintiff are entitled. For the foregoing reasons, it is only necessary to annul the sale of the said lot which was made by Ruperta Pascual, in representation of her minor children, to Cu Joco, and to maintain the latter in the use of the lot until the plaintiffs shall choose one or the other of the two rights granted them by article 361 of the Civil Code.1awphil.net The judgment appealed from is reversed and the sale of the lot in question is held to be null and void and of no force or effect. No special finding is made as to the costs of both instances. Torres, Johnson, Carson, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-4150 February 10, 1910

FELIX DE LOS SANTOS, plaintiff-appelle, vs. AGUSTINA JARRA, administratrix of the estate of Magdaleno Jimenea, deceased, defendant-appellant. Matias Hilado, for appellant. Jose Felix Martinez, for appellee. TORRES, J.: On the 1st of September, 1906, Felix de los Santos brought suit against Agustina Jarra, the administratrix of the estate of Magdaleno Jimenea, alleging that in the latter part of 1901 Jimenea borrowed and obtained from the plaintiff ten first-class carabaos, to be used at the animal-power mill of his hacienda during the season of 1901-2, without recompense or remuneration whatever for the use thereof, under the sole condition that they should be returned to the owner as soon as the work at the mill was terminated; that Magdaleno Jimenea, however, did not return the carabaos, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff claimed their return after the work at the mill was finished; that Magdaleno Jimenea died on the 28th of October, 1904, and the defendant herein was appointed by the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros administratrix of his estate and she took over the administration of the same and is still performing her duties as such administratrix; that the plaintiff presented his claim to the commissioners of the estate of Jimenea, within the legal term, for the return of the said ten carabaos, but the said commissioners rejected his claim as appears in their report; therefore, the plaintiff prayed that judgment be entered against the defendant as administratrix of the estate of the deceased, ordering her to return the ten first-class carabaos loaned to the late Jimenea, or their present value, and to pay the costs. The defendant was duly summoned, and on the 25th of September, 1906, she demurred in writing to the complaint on the ground that it was vague; but on the 2d of October of the same year, in answer to the complaint, she said that it was true that the late Magdaleno Jimenea asked the plaintiff to loan him ten carabaos, but that he only obtained three second-class animals, which were afterwards transferred by sale by the plaintiff to the said Jimenea; that she denied the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the complaint; for all of which she asked the court to absolve her of the complaint with the cost against the plaintiff. By a writing dated the 11th of December, 1906, Attorney Jose Felix Martinez notified the defendant and her counsel, Matias Hilado, that he had made an agreement with the plaintiff to the effect that the latter would not compromise the controversy without his consent, and that as

fees for his professional services he was to receive one half of the amount allowed in the judgment if the same were entered in favor of the plaintiff. The case came up for trial, evidence was adduced by both parties, and either exhibits were made of record. On the 10th of January, 1907, the court below entered judgment sentencing Agustina Jarra, as administratrix of the estate of Magdaleno Jimenea, to return to the plaintiff, Felix de los Santos, the remaining six second and third class carabaos, or the value thereof at the rate of P120 each, or a total of P720 with the costs. Counsel for the defendant excepted to the foregoing judgment, and, by a writing dated January 19, moved for anew trial on the ground that the findings of fact were openly and manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence. The motion was overruled, the defendant duly excepted, and in due course submitted the corresponding bill of exceptions, which was approved and submitted to this court. The defendant has admitted that Magdaleno Jimenea asked the plaintiff for the loan of ten carabaos which are now claimed by the latter, as shown by two letters addressed by the said Jimenea to Felix de los Santos; but in her answer the said defendant alleged that the late Jimenea only obtained three second-class carabaos, which were subsequently sold to him by the owner, Santos; therefore, in order to decide this litigation it is indispensable that proof be forthcoming that Jimenea only received three carabaos from his son-in-law Santos, and that they were sold by the latter to him. The record discloses that it has been fully proven from the testimony of a sufficient number of witnesses that the plaintiff, Santos, sent in charge of various persons the ten carabaos requested by his father-in-law, Magdaleno Jimenea, in the two letters produced at the trial by the plaintiff, and that Jimenea received them in the presence of some of said persons, one being a brother of said Jimenea, who saw the animals arrive at the hacienda where it was proposed to employ them. Four died of rinderpest, and it is for this reason that the judgment appealed from only deals with six surviving carabaos. The alleged purchase of three carabaos by Jimenea from his son-in-law Santos is not evidenced by any trustworthy documents such as those of transfer, nor were the declarations of the witnesses presented by the defendant affirming it satisfactory; for said reason it can not be considered that Jimenea only received three carabaos on loan from his son-in-law, and that he afterwards kept them definitely by virtue of the purchase. By the laws in force the transfer of large cattle was and is still made by means of official documents issued by the local authorities; these documents constitute the title of ownership of the carabao or horse so acquired. Furthermore, not only should the purchaser be provided with a new certificate or credential, a document which has not been produced in evidence by the defendant, nor has the loss of the same been shown in the case, but the old documents ought to be on file in the municipality, or they should have been delivered to the new purchaser, and in the case at bar neither did the defendant present the old credential on which should be stated the name of the previous owner of each of the three carabaos said to have been sold by the plaintiff.

From the foregoing it may be logically inferred that the carabaos loaned or given on commodatum to the now deceased Magdaleno Jimenea were ten in number; that they, or at any rate the six surviving ones, have not been returned to the owner thereof, Felix de los Santos, and that it is not true that the latter sold to the former three carabaos that the purchaser was already using; therefore, as the said six carabaos were not the property of the deceased nor of any of his descendants, it is the duty of the administratrix of the estate to return them or indemnify the owner for their value. The Civil Code, in dealing with loans in general, from which generic denomination the specific one of commodatum is derived, establishes prescriptions in relation to the last-mentioned contract by the following articles: ART. 1740. By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to the other, either anything not perishable, in order that the latter may use it during a certain period and return it to the former, in which case it is called commodatum, or money or any other perishable thing, under the condition to return an equal amount of the same kind and quality, in which case it is merely called a loan. Commodatum is essentially gratuitous. A simple loan may be gratuitous, or made under a stipulation to pay interest. ART. 1741. The bailee acquires retains the ownership of the thing loaned. The bailee acquires the use thereof, but not its fruits; if any compensation is involved, to be paid by the person requiring the use, the agreement ceases to be a commodatum. ART. 1742. The obligations and rights which arise from the commodatum pass to the heirs of both contracting parties, unless the loan has been in consideration for the person of the bailee, in which case his heirs shall not have the right to continue using the thing loaned. The carabaos delivered to be used not being returned by the defendant upon demand, there is no doubt that she is under obligation to indemnify the owner thereof by paying him their value. Article 1101 of said code reads: Those who in fulfilling their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner whatsoever act in contravention of the stipulations of the same, shall be subjected to indemnify for the losses and damages caused thereby. The obligation of the bailee or of his successors to return either the thing loaned or its value, is sustained by the supreme tribunal of Sapin. In its decision of March 21, 1895, it sets out with precision the legal doctrine touching commodatum as follows: Although it is true that in a contract of commodatum the bailor retains the ownership of the thing loaned, and at the expiration of the period, or after the use for which it was

loaned has been accomplished, it is the imperative duty of the bailee to return the thing itself to its owner, or to pay him damages if through the fault of the bailee the thing should have been lost or injured, it is clear that where public securities are involved, the trial court, in deferring to the claim of the bailor that the amount loaned be returned him by the bailee in bonds of the same class as those which constituted the contract, thereby properly applies law 9 of title 11 of partida 5. With regard to the third assignment of error, based on the fact that the plaintiff Santos had not appealed from the decision of the commissioners rejecting his claim for the recovery of his carabaos, it is sufficient to estate that we are not dealing with a claim for the payment of a certain sum, the collection of a debt from the estate, or payment for losses and damages (sec. 119, Code of Civil Procedure), but with the exclusion from the inventory of the property of the late Jimenea, or from his capital, of six carabaos which did not belong to him, and which formed no part of the inheritance. The demand for the exclusion of the said carabaos belonging to a third party and which did not form part of the property of the deceased, must be the subject of a direct decision of the court in an ordinary action, wherein the right of the third party to the property which he seeks to have excluded from the inheritance and the right of the deceased has been discussed, and rendered in view of the result of the evidence adduced by the administrator of the estate and of the claimant, since it is so provided by the second part of section 699 and by section 703 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the refusal of the commissioners before whom the plaintiff unnecessarily appeared can not affect nor reduce the unquestionable right of ownership of the latter, inasmuch as there is no law nor principle of justice authorizing the successors of the late Jimenea to enrich themselves at the cost and to the prejudice of Felix de los Santos. For the reasons above set forth, by which the errors assigned to the judgment appealed from have been refuted, and considering that the same is in accordance with the law and the merits of the case, it is our opinion that it should be affirmed and we do hereby affirm it with the costs against the appellant. So ordered. Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Moreland and Elliott, JJ., concur. Carson, J., reserves his vote. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 80294-95 September 21, 1988 CATHOLIC VICAR APOSTOLIC OF THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF EGMIDIO OCTAVIANO AND JUAN VALDEZ, respondents.

Valdez, Ereso, Polido & Associates for petitioner. Claustro, Claustro, Claustro Law Office collaborating counsel for petitioner. Jaime G. de Leon for the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano. Cotabato Law Office for the Heirs of Juan Valdez.

GANCAYCO, J.: The principal issue in this case is whether or not a decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated a long time ago can properly be considered res judicata by respondent Court of Appeals in the present two cases between petitioner and two private respondents. Petitioner questions as allegedly erroneous the Decision dated August 31, 1987 of the Ninth Division of Respondent Court of Appeals 1 in CA-G.R. No. 05148 [Civil Case No. 3607 (419)] and CA-G.R. No. 05149 [Civil Case No. 3655 (429)], both for Recovery of Possession, which affirmed the Decision of the Honorable Nicodemo T. Ferrer, Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio and Benguet in Civil Case No. 3607 (419) and Civil Case No. 3655 (429), with the dispositive portion as follows:
WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant, Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province to return and surrender Lot 2 of Plan Psu-194357 to the plaintiffs. Heirs of Juan Valdez, and Lot 3 of the same Plan to the other set of plaintiffs, the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano (Leonardo Valdez, et al.). For lack or insufficiency of evidence, the plaintiffs' claim or damages is hereby denied. Said defendant is ordered to pay costs. (p. 36, Rollo)

Respondent Court of Appeals, in affirming the trial court's decision, sustained the trial court's conclusions that the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated May 4,1977 in CAG.R. No. 38830-R, in the two cases affirmed by the Supreme Court, touched on the ownership of lots 2 and 3 in question; that the two lots were possessed by the predecessors-in-interest of private respondents under claim of ownership in good faith from 1906 to 1951; that petitioner had been in possession of the same lots as bailee in commodatum up to 1951, when petitioner repudiated the trust and when it applied for registration in 1962; that petitioner had just been in possession as owner for eleven years, hence there is no possibility of acquisitive prescription which requires 10 years possession with just title and 30 years of possession without; that the principle of res judicata on these findings by the Court of Appeals will bar a reopening of these questions of facts; and that those facts may no longer be altered. Petitioner's motion for reconsideation of the respondent appellate court's Decision in the two aforementioned cases (CA G.R. No. CV-05418 and 05419) was denied.

The facts and background of these cases as narrated by the trail court are as follows
... The documents and records presented reveal that the whole controversy started when the defendant Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province (VICAR for brevity) filed with the Court of First Instance of Baguio Benguet on September 5, 1962 an application for registration of title over Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Psu-194357, situated at Poblacion Central, La Trinidad, Benguet, docketed as LRC N-91, said Lots being the sites of the Catholic Church building, convents, high school building, school gymnasium, school dormitories, social hall, stonewalls, etc. On March 22, 1963 the Heirs of Juan Valdez and the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano filed their Answer/Opposition on Lots Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, asserting ownership and title thereto. After trial on the merits, the land registration court promulgated its Decision, dated November 17, 1965, confirming the registrable title of VICAR to Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. The Heirs of Juan Valdez (plaintiffs in the herein Civil Case No. 3655) and the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano (plaintiffs in the herein Civil Case No. 3607) appealed the decision of the land registration court to the then Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 38830-R. The Court of Appeals rendered its decision, dated May 9, 1977, reversing the decision of the land registration court and dismissing the VICAR's application as to Lots 2 and 3, the lots claimed by the two sets of oppositors in the land registration case (and two sets of plaintiffs in the two cases now at bar), the first lot being presently occupied by the convent and the second by the women's dormitory and the sister's convent. On May 9, 1977, the Heirs of Octaviano filed a motion for reconsideration praying the Court of Appeals to order the registration of Lot 3 in the names of the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano, and on May 17, 1977, the Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez filed their motion for reconsideration praying that both Lots 2 and 3 be ordered registered in the names of the Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez. On August 12,1977, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Heirs of Juan Valdez on the ground that there was "no sufficient merit to justify reconsideration one way or the other ...," and likewise denied that of the Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano. Thereupon, the VICAR filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing his (its) application for registration of Lots 2 and 3, docketed as G.R. No. L46832, entitled 'Catholic Vicar Apostolic of the Mountain Province vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano.' From the denial by the Court of Appeals of their motion for reconsideration the Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez, on September 8, 1977, filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review, docketed as G.R. No. L-46872, entitled, Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez vs. Court of Appeals, Vicar, Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano and Annable O. Valdez. On January 13, 1978, the Supreme Court denied in a minute resolution both petitions (of VICAR on the one hand and the Heirs of Juan Valdez

and Pacita Valdez on the other) for lack of merit. Upon the finality of both Supreme Court resolutions in G.R. No. L-46832 and G.R. No. L- 46872, the Heirs of Octaviano filed with the then Court of First Instance of Baguio, Branch II, a Motion For Execution of Judgment praying that the Heirs of Octaviano be placed in possession of Lot 3. The Court, presided over by Hon. Salvador J. Valdez, on December 7, 1978, denied the motion on the ground that the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. No. 38870 did not grant the Heirs of Octaviano any affirmative relief. On February 7, 1979, the Heirs of Octaviano filed with the Court of Appeals a petitioner for certiorari and mandamus, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 08890-R, entitled Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano vs. Hon. Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. and Vicar. In its decision dated May 16, 1979, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. It was at that stage that the instant cases were filed. The Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano filed Civil Case No. 3607 (419) on July 24, 1979, for recovery of possession of Lot 3; and the Heirs of Juan Valdez filed Civil Case No. 3655 (429) on September 24, 1979, likewise for recovery of possession of Lot 2 (Decision, pp. 199-201, Orig. Rec.). In Civil Case No. 3607 (419) trial was held. The plaintiffs Heirs of Egmidio Octaviano presented one (1) witness, Fructuoso Valdez, who testified on the alleged ownership of the land in question (Lot 3) by their predecessor-in-interest, Egmidio Octaviano (Exh. C ); his written demand (Exh. BB-4 ) to defendant Vicar for the return of the land to them; and the reasonable rentals for the use of the land at P10,000.00 per month. On the other hand, defendant Vicar presented the Register of Deeds for the Province of Benguet, Atty. Nicanor Sison, who testified that the land in question is not covered by any title in the name of Egmidio Octaviano or any of the plaintiffs (Exh. 8). The defendant dispensed with the testimony of Mons.William Brasseur when the plaintiffs admitted that the witness if called to the witness stand, would testify that defendant Vicar has been in possession of Lot 3, for seventy-five (75) years continuously and peacefully and has constructed permanent structures thereon. In Civil Case No. 3655, the parties admitting that the material facts are not in dispute, submitted the case on the sole issue of whether or not the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court touching on the ownership of Lot 2, which in effect declared the plaintiffs the owners of the land constitute res judicata. In these two cases , the plaintiffs arque that the defendant Vicar is barred from setting up the defense of ownership and/or long and continuous possession of the two lots in question since this is barred by prior judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 038830-R under the principle of res judicata. Plaintiffs contend that the question of possession and ownership have already been determined by the Court of Appeals (Exh. C, Decision, CA-G.R. No. 038830-R) and affirmed by the Supreme Court (Exh. 1, Minute Resolution of the Supreme Court). On his part, defendant Vicar maintains that the principle of res judicata would not prevent them from litigating the issues of long possession and ownership because the dispositive portion of the prior judgment in CAG.R. No. 038830-R merely dismissed their application for registration and titling of lots 2 and 3. Defendant Vicar contends that only the dispositive portion of the decision, and not 2 its body, is the controlling pronouncement of the Court of Appeals.

The alleged errors committed by respondent Court of Appeals according to petitioner are as follows:

1. ERROR IN APPLYING LAW OF THE CASE AND RES JUDICATA; 2. ERROR IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT RULED THAT LOTS 2 AND 3 WERE ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE BUT WITHOUT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED; 3. ERROR IN FINDING THAT PETITIONERS' CLAIM IT PURCHASED LOTS 2 AND 3 FROM VALDEZ AND OCTAVIANO WAS AN IMPLIED ADMISSION THAT THE FORMER OWNERS WERE VALDEZ AND OCTAVIANO; 4. ERROR IN FINDING THAT IT WAS PREDECESSORS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WHO WERE IN POSSESSION OF LOTS 2 AND 3 AT LEAST FROM 1906, AND NOT PETITIONER; 5. ERROR IN FINDING THAT VALDEZ AND OCTAVIANO HAD FREE PATENT APPLICATIONS AND THE PREDECESSORS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ALREADY HAD FREE PATENT APPLICATIONS SINCE 1906; 6. ERROR IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER DECLARED LOTS 2 AND 3 ONLY IN 1951 AND JUST TITLE IS A PRIME NECESSITY UNDER ARTICLE 1134 IN RELATION TO ART. 1129 OF THE CIVIL CODE FOR ORDINARY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION OF 10 YEARS; 7. ERROR IN FINDING THAT THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA G.R. NO. 038830 WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT; 8. ERROR IN FINDING THAT THE DECISION IN CA G.R. NO. 038830 TOUCHED ON OWNERSHIP OF LOTS 2 AND 3 AND THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR PREDECESSORS WERE IN POSSESSION OF LOTS 2 AND 3 UNDER A CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP IN GOOD FAITH FROM 1906 TO 1951; 9. ERROR IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN IN POSSESSION OF LOTS 2 AND 3 MERELY AS BAILEE BOR ROWER) IN COMMODATUM, A GRATUITOUS LOAN FOR USE; 10. ERROR IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER IS A POSSESSOR AND BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH WITHOUT RIGHTS OF RETENTION AND REIMBURSEMENT AND IS BARRED BY THE FINALITY AND CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE DECISION IN CA G.R. NO. 038830. 3 The petition is bereft of merit. Petitioner questions the ruling of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Nos. 05148 and 05149, when it clearly held that it was in agreement with the findings of the trial court that the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 4,1977 in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R, on the question of ownership of Lots 2 and 3, declared that the said Court of

Appeals Decision CA-G.R. No. 38830-R) did not positively declare private respondents as owners of the land, neither was it declared that they were not owners of the land, but it held that the predecessors of private respondents were possessors of Lots 2 and 3, with claim of ownership in good faith from 1906 to 1951. Petitioner was in possession as borrower in commodatum up to 1951, when it repudiated the trust by declaring the properties in its name for taxation purposes. When petitioner applied for registration of Lots 2 and 3 in 1962, it had been in possession in concept of owner only for eleven years. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession for ten years, but always with just title. Extraordinary acquisitive prescription requires 30 years. 4 On the above findings of facts supported by evidence and evaluated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R, affirmed by this Court, We see no error in respondent appellate court's ruling that said findings are res judicata between the parties. They can no longer be altered by presentation of evidence because those issues were resolved with finality a long time ago. To ignore the principle of res judicata would be to open the door to endless litigations by continuous determination of issues without end. An examination of the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 4, 1977, First Division 5 in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R, shows that it reversed the trial court's Decision 6 finding petitioner to be entitled to register the lands in question under its ownership, on its evaluation of evidence and conclusion of facts. The Court of Appeals found that petitioner did not meet the requirement of 30 years possession for acquisitive prescription over Lots 2 and 3. Neither did it satisfy the requirement of 10 years possession for ordinary acquisitive prescription because of the absence of just title. The appellate court did not believe the findings of the trial court that Lot 2 was acquired from Juan Valdez by purchase and Lot 3 was acquired also by purchase from Egmidio Octaviano by petitioner Vicar because there was absolutely no documentary evidence to support the same and the alleged purchases were never mentioned in the application for registration. By the very admission of petitioner Vicar, Lots 2 and 3 were owned by Valdez and Octaviano. Both Valdez and Octaviano had Free Patent Application for those lots since 1906. The predecessors of private respondents, not petitioner Vicar, were in possession of the questioned lots since 1906. There is evidence that petitioner Vicar occupied Lots 1 and 4, which are not in question, but not Lots 2 and 3, because the buildings standing thereon were only constructed after liberation in 1945. Petitioner Vicar only declared Lots 2 and 3 for taxation purposes in 1951. The improvements oil Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 were paid for by the Bishop but said Bishop was appointed only in 1947, the church was constructed only in 1951 and the new convent only 2 years before the trial in 1963. When petitioner Vicar was notified of the oppositor's claims, the parish priest offered to buy the lot from Fructuoso Valdez. Lots 2 and 3 were surveyed by request of petitioner Vicar only in 1962.

Private respondents were able to prove that their predecessors' house was borrowed by petitioner Vicar after the church and the convent were destroyed. They never asked for the return of the house, but when they allowed its free use, they became bailors in commodatum and the petitioner the bailee. The bailees' failure to return the subject matter of commodatum to the bailor did not mean adverse possession on the part of the borrower. The bailee held in trust the property subject matter of commodatum. The adverse claim of petitioner came only in 1951 when it declared the lots for taxation purposes. The action of petitioner Vicar by such adverse claim could not ripen into title by way of ordinary acquisitive prescription because of the absence of just title. The Court of Appeals found that the predecessors-in-interest and private respondents were possessors under claim of ownership in good faith from 1906; that petitioner Vicar was only a bailee in commodatum; and that the adverse claim and repudiation of trust came only in 1951. We find no reason to disregard or reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R. Its findings of fact have become incontestible. This Court declined to review said decision, thereby in effect, affirming it. It has become final and executory a long time ago. Respondent appellate court did not commit any reversible error, much less grave abuse of discretion, when it held that the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 38830-R is governing, under the principle of res judicata, hence the rule, in the present cases CA-G.R. No. 05148 and CA-G.R. No. 05149. The facts as supported by evidence established in that decision may no longer be altered. WHEREFORE AND BY REASON OF THE FOREGOING, this petition is DENIED for lack of merit, the Decision dated Aug. 31, 1987 in CA-G.R. Nos. 05148 and 05149, by respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, Cruz, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-46145 November 26, 1986

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (BUREAU OF LANDS), petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF DOMINGO P. BALOY, represented by RICARDO BALOY, ET AL., respondents. Pelaez, Jalondoni, Adriano and Associates for respondents.

PARAS, J.:p This case originally emanated from a decision of the then Court of First Instance of Zambales in LRC Case No. 11-0, LRC Record No. N29355, denying respondents' application for registration. From said order of denial the applicants, heirs of Domingo Baloy, represented by Ricardo P. Baloy, (herein private respondents) interposed on appeal to the Court of Appeals which was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 52039-R. The appellate court, thru its Fifth Division with the Hon. Justice Magno Gatmaitan as ponente, rendered a decision dated February 3, 1977 reversing the decision appealed from and thus approving the application for registration. Oppositors (petitioners herein) filed their Motion for Reconsideration alleging among other things that applicants' possessory information title can no longer be invoked and that they were not able to prove a registerable title over the land. Said Motion for Reconsideration was denied, hence this petition for review on certiorari. Applicants' claim is anchored on their possessory information title (Exhibit F which had been translated in Exhibit F-1) coupled with their continuous, adverse and public possession over the land in question. An examination of the possessory information title shows that the description and the area of the land stated therein substantially coincides with the land applied for and that said possessory information title had been regularly issued having been acquired by applicants' predecessor, Domingo Baloy, under the provisions of the Spanish Mortgage Law. Applicants presented their tax declaration on said lands on April 8, 1965. The Director of Lands opposed the registration alleging that this land had become public land thru the operation of Act 627 of the Philippine Commission. On November 26, 1902 pursuant to the executive order of the President of the U.S., the area was declared within the U.S. Naval Reservation. Under Act 627 as amended by Act 1138, a period was fixed within which persons affected thereby could file their application, (that is within 6 months from July 8, 1905) otherwise "the said lands or interest therein will be conclusively adjudged to be public lands and all claims on the part of private individuals for such lands or interests therein not to presented will be forever barred." Petitioner argues that since Domingo Baloy failed to file his claim within the prescribed period, the land had become irrevocably public and could not be the subject of a valid registration for private ownership. Considering the foregoing facts respondents Court of Appeals ruled as follows: ... perhaps, the consequence was that upon failure of Domingo Baloy to have filed his application within that period the land had become irrevocably public; but perhaps also, for the reason that warning was from the Clerk of the Court of Land Registration, named J.R. Wilson and there has not been presented a formal order or decision of the said Court of Land Registration so declaring the land public because of that failure, it can with plausibility be said that after all, there was no judicial declaration to that effect, it is true that the U.S. Navy did occupy it apparently for some time, as a recreation area, as this Court understands from the communication of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the U.S. Embassy exhibited in the record, but the very tenor of the communication apparently seeks to justify the title of herein applicants, in other words, what this Court has taken from the occupation by the U.S. Navy is that during the interim, the title of applicants was in a state of suspended animation so to speak but it had not died either; and the fact being that this land was really originally private from and after the issuance and inscription of the possessory information Exh. F during the Spanish times, it would be most difficult to sustain position of Director of Lands that it was land of no private owner; open to public disposition, and over which he has control; and since immediately after U.S. Navy had abandoned the area, applicant came in and asserted title once again, only to be troubled by first Crispiniano Blanco who however in due time, quitclaimed in favor of applicants, and then by private oppositors now, apparently originally tenants of Blanco, but that entry of private oppositors sought to be given color of ownership when they sought to and did file tax declaration in 1965, should not prejudice the original rights of applicants thru their possessory information secured regularly so long ago, the conclusion must have to be that after all, applicants had succeeded in bringing themselves within the provisions of Sec. 19 of Act 496, the land should be registered in their favor; IN VIEW WHEREOF, this Court is constrained to reverse, as it now reverses, judgment appealed from the application is approved, and once this decision shall have become final, if ever it would be, let decree issue in favor of applicants with the personal circumstances outlined in the application, costs against private oppositors. Petitioner now comes to Us with the following: ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS: 1. Respondent court erred in holding that to bar private respondents from asserting any right under their possessory information title there is need for a court order to that effect. 2. Respondent court erred in not holding that private respondents' rights by virtue of their possessory information title was lost by prescription.

3. Respondent court erred in concluding that applicants have registerable title. A cursory reading of Sec. 3, Act 627 reveals that several steps are to be followed before any affected land can "be conclusively adjudged to be public land." Sec. 3, Act 627 reads as follows: SEC. 3. Immediately upon receipt of the notice from the civil Governor in the preceeding section mentioned it shall be the duty of the judge of the Court of Land Registration to issue a notice, stating that the lands within the limits aforesaid have been reserved for military purposes, and announced and declared to be military reservations, and that claims for all private lands, buildings, and interests therein, within the limits aforesaid, must be presented for registration under the Land Registration Act within six calendar months from the date of issuing the notice, and that all lands, buildings, and interests therein within the limits aforesaid not so presented within the time therein limited will be conclusively adjudged to be public lands and all claims on the part of private individuals for such lands, buildings, or an interest therein not so presented will be forever barred. The clerk of the Court of Land Registration shall immediately upon the issuing of such notice by the judge cause the same to be published once a week for three successive weeks in two newspapers, one of which newspapers shall be in the English Language, and one in the Spanish language in the city or province where the land lies, if there be no such Spanish or English newspapers having a general circulation in the city or province wherein the land lies, then it shall be a sufficient compliance with this section if the notice be published as herein provided, in a daily newspaper in the Spanish language and one in the English language, in the City of Manila, having a general circulation. The clerk shall also cause a duly attested copy of the notice in the Spanish language to be posted in conspicuous place at each angle formed by the lines of the limits of the land reserved. The clerk shall also issue and cause to be personally served the notice in the Spanish language upon every person living upon or in visible possession of any part of the military reservation. If the person in possession is the head of the family living upon the hand, it shall be sufficient to serve the notice upon him, and if he is absent it shall be sufficient to leave a copy at his usual place of residence. The clerk shall certify the manner in which the notices have been published, posted, and served, and his certificate shall be conclusive proof of such publication, posting, and service, but the court shall have the power to cause such further notice to be given as in its opinion may be necessary. Clearly under said provisions, private land could be deemed to have become public land only by virtue of a judicial declaration after due notice and hearing. It runs contrary therefore to the contention of petitioners that failure to present claims set forth under Sec. 2 of Act 627 made the land ipso facto public without any deed of judicial pronouncement. Petitioner in making such declaration relied on Sec. 4 of Act 627 alone. But in construing a statute the entire provisions of the law must be considered in order to establish the correct interpretation as intended by the law-making body. Act 627 by its terms is not self-executory and requires implementation by the Court of Land Registration. Act 627, to the extent that it creates a forfeiture, is a penal statute in derogation of private rights, so it must be strictly construed so as to safeguard private respondents' rights. Significantly, petitioner does not even allege the existence of any judgment of the Land Registration court with respect to the land in question. Without a judgment or order declaring the land to be public, its private character and the possessory information title over it must be respected. Since no such order has been rendered by the Land Registration Court it necessarily follows that it never became public land thru the operation of Act 627. To assume otherwise is to deprive private respondents of their property without due process of law. In fact it can be presumed that the notice required by law to be given by publication and by personal service did not include the name of Domingo Baloy and the subject land, and hence he and his lane were never brought within the operation of Act 627 as amended. The procedure laid down in Sec. 3 is a requirement of due process. "Due process requires that the statutes which under it is attempted to deprive a citizen of private property without or against his consent must, as in expropriation cases, be strictly complied with, because such statutes are in derogation of general rights." (Arriete vs. Director of Public Works, 58 Phil. 507, 508, 511). We also find with favor private respondents' views that court judgments are not to be presumed. It would be absurd to speak of a judgment by presumption. If it could be contended that such a judgment may be presumed, it could equally be contended that applicants' predecessor Domingo Baloy presumably seasonably filed a claim, in accordance with the legal presumption that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns, and that a judgment in his favor was rendered. The finding of respondent court that during the interim of 57 years from November 26, 1902 to December 17, 1959 (when the U.S. Navy possessed the area) the possessory rights of Baloy or heirs were merely suspended and not lost by prescription, is supported by Exhibit "U," a communication or letter No. 1108-63, dated June 24, 1963, which contains an official statement of the position of the Republic of the Philippines with regard to the status of the land in question. Said letter recognizes the fact that Domingo Baloy and/or his heirs have been in continuous possession of said land since 1894 as attested by an "Informacion Possessoria" Title, which was granted by the Spanish Government. Hence, the disputed property is private land and this possession was interrupted only by the occupation of the land by the U.S. Navy in 1945 for recreational purposes. The U.S. Navy eventually abandoned the premises. The heirs of the late Domingo P. Baloy, are now in actual possession, and this has been so since the abandonment by the U.S. Navy. A new recreation area is now being used by the U.S. Navy personnel and this place is remote from the land in question. Clearly, the occupancy of the U.S. Navy was not in the concept of owner. It partakes of the character of a commodatum. It cannot therefore militate against the title of Domingo Baloy and his successors-in-interest. One's ownership of a thing may be lost by prescription by reason of another's possession if such possession be under claim of ownership, not where the possession is only intended to be transient, as in the case of the U.S. Navy's occupation of the land concerned, in which case the owner is not divested of his title, although it cannot be exercised in the meantime. WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding no merit in the petition the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Feria (Chairman), Alampay and Feliciano, * JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., concurs in the results. Fernan J., took no part.