Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • CA Agro-Industrial Dev. Corp. v. Court of Appeals

    Diunggah oleh

    Ron Decin
    121 tayangan1 halaman
    The petitioner and Spouses Pugao entered into an agreement where petitioner purchased two parcels of land from the Pugaos. They rented a safety deposit box from the private respondent Security Bank to store the land titles. However, when they later opened the box to access the titles for a potential buyer, the box was empty. The Court ruled that the relationship between the bank and renters of a safety deposit box is one of bailor and bailee, not lessor and lessee. As a bailee, the bank is responsible for any contents placed in the box that go missing. The prevailing view is that banks renting safe deposit boxes to customers create a bailment for their mutual benefit.

    Deskripsi Asli:

    Deposits; Credit Transaction

    Hak Cipta

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Format Tersedia

    DOCX, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    The petitioner and Spouses Pugao entered into an agreement where petitioner purchased two parcels of land from the Pugaos. They rented a safety deposit box from the private respondent Security Bank to store the land titles. However, when they later opened the box to access the titles for a potential buyer, the box was empty. The Court ruled that the relationship between the bank and renters of a safety deposit box is one of bailor and bailee, not lessor and lessee. As a bailee, the bank is responsible for any contents placed in the box that go missing. The prevailing view is that banks renting safe deposit boxes to customers create a bailment for their mutual benefit.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai DOCX, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    121 tayangan1 halaman

    CA Agro-Industrial Dev. Corp. v. Court of Appeals

    Diunggah oleh

    Ron Decin
    The petitioner and Spouses Pugao entered into an agreement where petitioner purchased two parcels of land from the Pugaos. They rented a safety deposit box from the private respondent Security Bank to store the land titles. However, when they later opened the box to access the titles for a potential buyer, the box was empty. The Court ruled that the relationship between the bank and renters of a safety deposit box is one of bailor and bailee, not lessor and lessee. As a bailee, the bank is responsible for any contents placed in the box that go missing. The prevailing view is that banks renting safe deposit boxes to customers create a bailment for their mutual benefit.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai DOCX, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 1

    CA Agro-Industrial Dev. Corp. vs.

    Court of Appeals | 219 SCRA 426 [1993]


    FACTS: On July 3, 1979, petitioner (through its President- Sergio Aguirre) and the Spouses Ramon and Paula
    Pugao entered into an agreement whereby the former purchase two parcel of lands from the later. It was paid of
    downpayment while the balance was covered by their postdated checks. Among the terms and conditions
    embodied in the agreement were the titles shall be transferred to the petitioner upon full payment of the price
    and the owner's copies of the certificate of titles shall be deposited in a safety deposit box of any bank.
    Petitioner and the Pugaos then rented Safety Deposit box of private respondent Security Bank and Trust
    Company.
    Thereafter, a certain Margarita Ramos offered to buy from the petitioner. Mrs Ramos demand the execution of a
    deed of sale which necessarily entailed the production of the certificate of titles. In view thereof, Aguirre,
    accompanied by the Pugaos, then proceed to the respondent Bank to open the safety deposit box and get the
    certificate of titles. However, when opened in the presence of the Bank's representative, the box yielded no such
    certificate. Because of the delay in the reconstitution of the title, Mrs Ramos withdrew her earlier offer to
    purchase. Hence this petition.
    ISSUE: Whether the contractual relation between a commercial bank and another party in a contract of rent of a
    safety deposit box with respect to its contents placed by the latter one of bailor and bailee or one of lessor and
    lessee.
    RULING: The petitioner is correct in making the contention that the contract for the rent of the deposit box is
    not an ordinary contract of lease as defined in Article 1643 of the Civil Code. However, the Court do not really
    subscribe to its view that the same is a contract of deposit that is to be strictly governed by the provisions in
    Civil Code on Deposit; the contract in the case at bar is a special kind of deposit. It cannot be characterized as
    an ordinary contract of lease under Article 1643 because the full and absolute possession and control of the
    safety deposit box was not given to the joint renters- the petitioner and the Pugaos. The guard key of the box
    remained with the respondent bank; without this key, neither of the renters could open the box. On the other
    hand, the respondent bank could not likewise open the box without the renter's key. The Court further assailed
    that the petitioner is correct in applying American Jurisprudence. Herein, the prevailing view is that the
    relation between a bank renting out safe deposits boxes and its customer with respect to the contents of
    the box is that of a bail or/and bailee, the bailment being for hire and mutual benefits. That prevailing rule
    has been adopted in Section 72 of the General Banking Act

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai