Quintos v.

Beck
G.R. No. L-46240, November 3, 1939

FACTS:
Beck is a tenant of defendant Margarita Quintos. Quintos granted gratuitously Beck the use of
the furniture found on the leased house, among these were three gas heaters and 4 electric lamps,
subject to the condition that the defendant would return them to the plaintiff upon the latter's
demand.
Quintos sold the pieces of furniture to Maria Lopez and Rosario Lopez and thereafter notified
Beck of the conveyance, giving him sixty days to vacate the premises under one of the clauses of the
contract of lease. On November 5, 1936, Beck informed Quintos that the latter can get the furniture at
the ground floor of the house. However, at a later date, Beck told Quintos that he will return only the
other furniture but not the gas heaters and the electric lamps as he is to return them only after the
expiration of the lease contract. Quintos refused to get the furniture in view of the fact that the
defendant had declined to make delivery of all of them.
When the lease contract expires, Beck deposited all of the furniture to the sheriffs warehouse.
Consequently, Quintos brought an action to compel Beck to return her certain furniture which she lent
him for his use. The trial court ruled in favor of Beck, holding that Quintos failed to comply with her
obligation to get the furniture when they were offered to her. On appeal of the case, the Court of First
Instance of Manila affirmed the lower courts decision.

ISSUE:
WON the trial court erred in ruling that Quintos failed to comply with her obligation to get the
furniture when they were offered to her?

RULING:
YES. It should be Beck to be declared the one who failed to comply with her obligation as a
bailee to return all the furniture upon bailor Quintos demand.
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, defendant Beck bound himself to return the furniture to plaintiff,
Quintos upon the latters demand. 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 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.
The costs in both instances should be borne by the defendant because the plaintiff is the
prevailing party (Sec. 487 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Defendant Beck 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.