Case Digest (G.R. No. 4150)
Facts:
In Felix de los Santos v. Agustina Jarra, G.R. No. 4150, decided February 10, 1910, Felix de los Santos (plaintiff-appellee) sued Agustina Jarra, administratrix of the estate of Magdaleno Jimenea (deceased), in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros. On September 1, 1906, de los Santos alleged that in late 1901 he had loaned ten first-class carabaos to Jimenea for free use at the latter’s animal-power mill, on the condition they be returned when the work ended. Jimenea failed to return them and died on October 28, 1904. De los Santos presented his claim for return to the estate commissioners within the legal term, but it was rejected. He then prayed for an order directing Jarra to return the ten carabaos or pay their value. Jarra demurred as vague but later admitted a loan only of three second-class animals which she claimed were sold to Jimenea. At trial, evidence showed that all ten carabaos were delivered and that four died of rinderpest, leaving six survivors. No vCase Digest (G.R. No. 4150)
Facts:
- Background of loan and parties
- In late 1901, Magdaleno Jimenea borrowed from Felix de los Santos ten first-class carabaos under a gratuitous loan (commodatum), to be returned when mill work at Jimenea’s hacienda was finished.
- Four of those carabaos died of rinderpest; six survivors remained in Jimenea’s possession.
- Death of bailee and estate administration
- Jimenea died on October 28, 1904; Agustina Jarra was appointed administratrix of his estate by the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros.
- The plaintiff presented to the estate commissioners his claim for the return of ten carabaos; the commissioners rejected it.
- Complaint, trial and lower court judgment
- On September 1, 1906, de los Santos filed suit against Jarra as administratrix, seeking the return of ten carabaos or their value, plus costs. The defendant demurred for vagueness, then answered, admitting only three second-class carabaos were obtained and sold to Jimenea.
- At trial, plaintiff proved delivery of ten carabaos; defendant failed to prove any sale. On January 10, 1907, the trial court ordered the return of the six surviving carabaos or payment of ₱120 each (₱720 total), plus costs. A motion for new trial was denied, and the defendant appealed.
Issues:
- Substantive issues
- Did Jimenea receive ten carabaos on commodatum, or only three that were sold and retained?
- Is the administratrix liable to return the surviving carabaos or to indemnify their owner by paying their value?
- Procedural issue
- Does the plaintiff’s failure to appeal from the commissioners’ rejection of his claim bar his direct action against the administratrix?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)