Article 1163

 ARTICLE 1163 - Every person obliged to give something is also obliged to take care of it with the proper diligence of a good father of a family, unless the law or the stipulation of the parties requires another standard of care. (1094a)


Reason for provision – This article provides the required standard of care for a thing to be delivered which is a proper diligence of a good father of a family, an exception to this requirement is when the law or the stipulation of the party requires another standard of care. 



Diligence Required – preserving the thing ,law requires the diligence of a good father of a family


Effect of Breach – the obligation to preserve the thing to be delivered has its sanction in the liability for damages imposed upon the debtor who fails the exercise of diligence of a good father of a family preserving the thing. But if the failure of the debtor to preserve the thing is due to no fault or negligence of his but fortuitous event or force. He is exempt from the responsibility


C.A. No. 34, April 29, 1946

ENGRACIO OBEJERA and MERCEDES INTAK, plaintiffs-appellees,

vs.

IGA SY, defendant-appellant.


Pedro Panganiban for appellant.

Jose Mayo Librea for appellees.


JARANILLA, J.:


Facts: 

This case is an appeal filed against the decision of the Court of First Instance of Batangas annulling, on the  ground  of  force  and  intimidation,  the  deed  of  transfer,  whereby  the plaintiffs  agreed  to  transfer  to  the defendant  their  property  in  case  they  failed  to  return  to  the  defendant  the  balance  and  pieces  of  jewelry allegedly deposited with the plaintiffs during the Japanese invasion


During  the  Japanese  invasion  plaintiffs  and  defendant  sought  refuge  in  the  house  of  Leon  Villena,  barrio lieutenant of Batangas and after consultation with their host Leon Villena,  they decided to hide their things and valuables in a dug-out belonging to Leon Villena. After a month the Sy who desired to move to another house, they went back to the dug-out to  take out the defendant's container and discovered, that their money and things, except for a few papers, had been lost. In  this  case  the  defendant  (Iga  Sy)  contends  that  she  deposited  her  money  and  jewelry  with  the  plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs, acknowledging liability for the loss of her money and jewelry, offered to transfer their property.  On  the  other  hand,  the  plaintiffs  deny  the  alleged  deposit,  deny  knowledge  of  the  loss  of  the  defendant's money and jewelry, and claim that their  consent  to the deed of transfer was  obtained through violence and intimidation.


ISSUE: 


Whether or not  the  plaintiffs  (OBEJERA  and  INTAK)  are liable  for  the  loss  of  the  defendant's  money  and jewelry?


the Supreme Court held:


In this bailment ordinary care and diligence are required of the bailee and he is not liable for the inevitable loss or destruction of the chattel, not attributable to his fault. If while the bailment continues, the chattel is destroyed, or stolen, or perishes, without negligence on the bailee’s part, the loss as in other hirings, falls upon the owner, in accordance with the maxim res perit domino. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Article 1387

 Article 1387 - All contracts by virtue of which the debtor alienates property by gratuitous title are presumed to have been entered into in fraud of creditors, when the donor did not reserve sufficient property to pay all debts contracted before the donation. Alienation by onerous title are also presumed fraudulent when made by persons against whom some judgment has been rendered in any instance or some writ of attachment has been issued. The decision or attachment need not refer to the property alienated and need not have been obtained by the party seeking the rescission. In addition to these presumptions, the design to defraud creditors may be proved in any other manner recognized by the law of evidence. The Statutory presumptions of fraud in Art. 1387are: Alienation by gratuitous title Example:  R made a donation of a parcel of land to E. Before the date of the donation, R had contracted several debts. With the donation to E, the remaining property of R is not sufficient t...
Read more

Article 1227

Article 1227 - The debtor cannot exempt himself from the performance of the obligation by paying the penalty, save in the case where this right has been expressly reserved for him. Neither can the creditor demand the fulfillment of the obligation and the satisfaction of the penalty at the same time, unless this right has been clearly granted him. However, if after the creditor has decided to require the fulfillment of the obligation, the performance thereof should become impossible without his fault, the penalty may be enforced. (1153a) Right of Debtor  - generally, the debtor cannot just pay the penalty instead of performing the obligation. The purpose of the penalty is to secure compliance with his obligation.  Exception - When the debtor is expressly granted the right. Ex. - PPD promises to finish the house within a stipulated period of 8 months. The contract stipulates that in case he does not build the house at all, he is supposed to forfeit the sum of 100k pesos. In thi...
Read more