Lavadia vs Mendoza, GR L 47996, 9 May 19411

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 codefendants 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
1 Note to the readers, the original text of the case is in Spanish. The digest's author cannot guarantee
accuracy of the digest herein.

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 courts decision, the defendants appealed the
decision to the Supreme Court.
Issues: These issues were raised by Rosario Cosme de Mendoza and her co-defendants,
1. Whether or not the CFI erred in ordering the defendants the jewelrys 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 jewelrys 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 Lagunas 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, Rosarios
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.