QUINTOS VS BECK 69 PHIL 108

Facts: Quintos and Beck entered into a contract of lease, whereby the latter
occupied the formers house. On Jan 14, 19!, the contract of lease was no"ated,
wherein the Q#intos $ratuitously $ranted to Beck the use of the furniture, sub%ect to
the condition that Beck should return the furnitures to Quintos upon demand.
&hereafter, Quintos sold the property to 'aria and (osario )ope*. Beck was noti+ed
of the con"eyance and $i"en him !, days to "acate the premises. -. addition,
Quintos re/uired Beck to return all the furniture. Beck refused to return $as
heaters and 4 electric lamps since he would use them until the lease was due to
e0pire. Quintos refused to $et the furniture since Beck had declined to return all of
them. Beck deposited all the furniture belon$in$ to Q#intos to the sheri1.
ISSUE: WON Beck complied with his obli$ation of returnin$ the furnitures to
Quintos when it deposited the furnitures to the sheri1.
RULING: &he contract entered into between the parties is one of commadatum,
because under it the plainti1 $ratuitously $ranted the use of the furniture to the
defendant, reser"in$ for herself the ownership thereof2 by this contract the
defendant bound himself to return the furniture to the plainti1, upon the latters
demand 3clause 4 of the contract, 50hibit 62 articles 144,, para$raph 1, and 1441 of
the 7i"il 7ode8. &he obli$ation "oluntarily assumed by the defendant to return the
furniture upon the plainti19s demand, means that he should return all of them to the
plainti1 at the latter9s residence or house. &he defendant did not comply with this
obli$ation when he merely placed them at the disposal of the plainti1, retainin$ for
his bene+t the three $as heaters and the four eletric lamps.
6s the defendant had "oluntarily undertaken to return all the furniture to the
plainti1, upon the latter9s demand, the 7ourt could not le$ally compel her to bear
the e0penses occasioned by the deposit of the furniture at the defendant9s behest.
&he latter, as bailee, was nt entitled to place the furniture on deposit2 nor was the
plainti1 under a duty to accept the o1er to return the furniture, because the
defendant wanted to retain the three $as heaters and the four electric lamps.