Lavadia vs Mendoza, GR L – 47996, 9 May 19411 Issues: These issues were raised by Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her
by Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her co-defendants,
Engracia Lavadia, et. al., plaintiffs-appellees
vs.
Rosario Cosme de Mendoza,et al., defendants-appellants.
Counsels: L. Fernandez Lavadia y Aurelio Palileo for the appellees, and Ortega y Ortega for the
appellants.
Ponente: Justice Diaz
Facts: This is an appeal of the Court of First Instance Laguna's decision about possession and
custody of the jewelry adorning image of Pagsanjan's patroness Our Lady of Guadalupe
consisting of a diamond-encrusted golden crown, a necklace with diamond and precious stones,
a belt encrusted with precious stones and diamonds, a golden collar completely encrusted with
precious stones, a golden bracelet encrusted with precious stones and diamonds, etc.
In 1880, six pious (6) ladies from (then municipality of) Pagsanjan, Laguna named Martina,
Matea, Isabel, Paula, Pia and Engracia all surnamed Lavadia, agreed that with their own money,
to contribute the abovementioned jewelries.
Except for the plaintiff Engracia, the defendants are the legal heirs of her late sisters Isabel,
Matea and Martina. Meanwhile, defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her co-defendants
are legal heirs and descendants of her late sister Paula.
Also, the original owners (Engracia and her sisters) agreed that these gems would be left with
Pia Lavadia. Pia had the jewels' custody until her death in 1882 after which her sister Paula
succeeded her. On Paula's death, the preservation and custody of such jewelry was given to her
husband Pedro Rosales and after him, their daughter Paz Rosales took custody, preservation
and care of the jewelry.
After Paz death, the custody, preservation and management of the jewels and the crown passed
to her husband Baldomero Cosme, then to Manuel Soriano and eventually succeeded by the
defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza. In fact, from 1880 up to the present time, the jewels
were used to decorate the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Pagsanjan every year and none
of them who keep or guard these jewels claimed to possess as the sole owner. Defendant
Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her co-defendants stated that they did not intend to (solely)
own the jewelries.
Rosario, who was the latest custodian of the jewelries, entrusted those jewels to the Catholic
bishop of Lipa, subject to the condition that the deposited things be used to adorn of Our Lady of
Guadalupe's image but according to the will of their owners. All these jewels are now locked and
deposited in the Bank of the Philippine Islands because Rosario Cosme de Mendoza deposited
those things there. The descendants of the Isabel, Martina and Matea Lavadia as well as the
plaintiff Engracia Lavadia filed a case in CFI Laguna to claim possession and custody of the
jewels.
The lower trial court ruled against the defendants, stating that the plaintiffs are entitled to fourth-
sixths' (4/6) pro indiviso share and the defendants are entitled to the two sixths' pro indiviso
share of the jewelry. It ruled that Rosario Cosme de Mendoza has to deliver the jewelries to the
plaintiff and one of the previous owners Engracia. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, the
defendants appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
1. Whether or not the CFI erred in ordering the defendants the jewelry’s delivery to the
plaintiffs, even if they did not intend to have the sole ownership and custodianship of
the said items?
2. Whether or not that the CFI erred to declare that plaintiffs are entitled to fourth-sixths'
(4/6) and the defendants, only entitled to the two sixths' share of the said jewelries?
3. Whether or not that CFI erred in its failure to declare that defendant-appellant Rosario
Cosme de Mendoza, cannot be deprived of jewels’ custody and administration except
only when she is incapacitated, when she executed acts contrary to the will of
previous owners?
4. Whether or not that Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, being the jewelry’s possessor and
custodian, faithfully performed her duties?
5. Whether or not the CFI erred in denying her petition for a new trial?
Held by the Supreme Court:
The Court affirmed a quo the CFI Laguna’s decision on appeal, seeing that it did not commit any
error in its judgment, and the defendant-appellants are to pay the costs of suit.
It is uncontested that in proportion to each one's interest, all of the parties has ownership and
need to contribute equally a share in the costs of the administration and preservation of the
jewelries, as required by Article 393 of the Old Civil Code. Therefore, the CFI was right in
concluding that the appellees have fourth-sixths’ (4/6) and appellants two-sixths (2/6) share.
The Court ruled that based on the facts above, there was clearly a contract of deposit among the
parties, including Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, as deemed in Article 1758 of the Old Civil Code.
Moreover, it was ruled that even among common owners of a thing, one of them may have its
custody (as depositary), and the depositary is subjected to the same obligations under the law
with respect to the conservation of the thing with the care, diligence and interest of a good father.
Thus, Rosario’s argument was rejected in proposition that the deposited jewelries cannot be
withdrawn from her administration and custody by the plaintiffs, since in a contract of deposit, a
depositor can withdraw the thing deposited from its depositary like in circumstances when the
depositary performed acts against the orders of the depositor and his/her heirs.
SO ORDERED.
Justices Imperial, Laurel, Moran and Horrilleno, concurring.