Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17474)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Jose V. Bagtas, G.R. No. L-17474. October 25, 1962, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.On 8 May 1948 Jose V. Bagtas borrowed from the Republic of the Philippines, through the Bureau of Animal Industry, three bulls for breeding: a Red Sindhi (book value P1,176.46), a Bhagnari (P1,320.56) and a Sahiniwal (P744.46). The loan was for one year (8 May 1948–7 May 1949) and subject to a breeding fee equal to 10% of each bull’s book value. The borrower requested renewal; the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources approved renewal for only one bull for the year 8 May 1949–7 May 1950 and demanded return of the other two.
Between March and October 1950 Jose V. Bagtas sought to purchase the bulls at depreciated values; the Director of Animal Industry replied that the book values could not be reduced and demanded return or payment by 31 October 1950. Bagtas failed to return or pay. On 20 December 1950 the Republic (plaintiff/appellee) filed Civil No. 12818 in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking either return of the three bulls or payment of their book value (total P3,241.45), unpaid breeding fees (P499.62), interest and costs.
On 5 July 1951 Bagtas answered, alleging inability to return the bulls because of bad peace and order in Cagayan Valley and noting his pending administrative appeals over depreciation. After trial, on 30 July 1956 the trial court rendered judgment ordering Bagtas to pay P3,625.09 (the combined value stated by the court) plus breeding fees P626.17, with legal interest from filing and costs. Bagtas died on 23 October 1951; subsequently his widow, Felicidad M. Bagtas, was appointed administratrix of his estate.
The plaintiff moved ex parte for a writ of execution (filed 9 October 1958; granted 18 October; issued 11 November 1958) and for appointment of a special sheriff to serve the writ outside Manila (granted 2 December 1958). The administratrix was notified of the special-sheriff order on 6 December 1958. On 7 January 1959 she moved to quash the writ and for a preliminary injunction, alleging that two bulls (Sindhi and Bhagnari) had been returned on 26 June 1952 (receipt by Bureau superintendent) and that the Sahiniwal bull had died in November 1953 from gunshot wounds during a Huk raid on Hacienda Felicidad Intal, Baggao, Cagayan. The plaintiff objected (31 January 1959); the trial court denied the administratrix’s motion on 6 February 1959.
The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court because only questions of law were involved. The Supr...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in denying the administratrix’s motion to quash the writ of execution given the defendant’s death and the appointment of an administratrix (procedural/substitution and execution question)?
- Is the administratrix (estate) liable for the two bulls that were returned to the Bureau of Animal Industry on 26 June 1952?
- Does the death of the Sahiniwal bull during a Huk raid constitute force majeure excusing the administratri...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)