GR No. L-47 996 May 9, 1941 ENGRACIA LAVADIA AND OTHERS, plaintiffs and appellees, vs..

COSME DE ROSARIO Mendoza and others, defendants and appellants. DIAZ, J.:
chanrobl es virtual law library

Subject of litigation between the plaintiffs and defendants in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, was the possession and custody of certain jewelry that about six pious ladies of the town of Pagsanjan, Laguna, called Martina, Matthew, Elizabeth, Paula, Pia and Engracia Lavadia surnamed all, had sent confeccionaren 1880, with his own money to decorate them adornor and the Imagende Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of that municipality, holding them for themselves, the property of those not giving but only use the aforementioned Picture, for the purpose indicated. The plaintiffs and the defendants, except for Lavadia Engracia was one of six, are descendants of the other five original owners of the jewelry in question. Because the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza is one of the descendants of Lavadia Paula, who had custody of those lately, wanted to sign over the crown that was part of the same, the Catholic bishop of Lipa, to have it in their power, but subject to use of the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, according to the will of their masters, the descendants of the three (Isabel Lavadia, Matea Lavadia Lavadia and Martina), Engracia Lavadia who are the plaintiffs, promoted this cause in the Court their origin, to claim possession and custody of any and all such jewels. These are none other than those described in paragraph 3 of the application.
Chanroblesvirtu alawlibrary ch anrobles virtual law library

The court decided the case against the defendants, stating that the plaintiffs still own four-sixths undivided of jewelry the person involved, and the defendants, two sixths only those had a perfect right to determine who should take charge of their custody and that, when they had decided to entrust this is a Lavadia Engracia, one of the original owner, ordered that the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza to hand in all of that applicant. Against this decision of the court, the defendants filed an appeal, believing that the trial court erred (1) declaring that the appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, and anticesores in the possession of the said jewelry, but did not act only as trustees, and trust , (2) stating that the appellees are the owners of four-sixths of those, and they compete for that reason to exercise the right to appoint the person you entrust sucustodia, (3) by failing to declare the appellant Rosario Cosme of Mendoza, co-owner and trustee of such jewelry can not be deprived of his administration and custody, except for reasons you unable to do so, which ones are from acts contrary to the will of their original owners, and to dispose of mentioned jewelry at will, (4) by failing to declare that Lavadia Pia and their descendants down to Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, who had had custody and possession of the aforementioned gems, played with fidelity their duties, and finally ( 5) by denying his request for a rehearing.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobl es virtual law library

To get a complete picture of the facts, expongamoslos then following the story of the same court a quo makes the decision on your appeal, since they are not discussed nor the appellants nor the appellees: The purpose of the cause are the jewels of the image of the Virgin of Our Lady of Guadalupe, in the town of Pagsanjan, Laguna, and include a gold crown studded with diamonds and brilliant diamonds and a necklace of bright a belt also embedded with diamonds and diamonds, a gold necklace also completely embedded with diamonds, a gold bracelet embedded with diamonds and diamond, a gilded silver plate where the jewels are placed above and other gold or Vaira gilded silver for the decoration of the costumes of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. All these jewels are currently locked deposited in the Bank of the Philippines because there the defendant had deposited the Rosario Cosme de Mendoza.
Chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The crown jewels were concocted described above by the year 1880 at the cost of six

women residents of the town of Pagsanjan, Laguna. They were sisters and Pia Paula Lavadia Lavadia, sisters Martina and Matea Lavadia Lavadia, and sisters Elizabeth and Engracia Lavadia Lavadia. These ladies jewelry they had contributed to confecion the crown and jewels concocted ellasse described above, also contributing the money that is costing the confecion thereof. All these ladies and have died, except for the applicant Doa Engracia Lavadia Vda. De Fernandez. The other plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Isabel Lavadia, Matea Lavadia Lavadia and Martina, while the defendant Rosario Cosme Mendoza and his co-defendants are heirs and descendants of Paula Lavadia.
Chanroblesvirtu alawlibrary ch anrobles virtual law library

The crown jewels were sent to make use of the patron saint of the municipality of Pagasanjan holder, Ntra.Sra. Guadeloupe. When they had finished drawing up, the owners agreed to such jewelry would keep the taxpayer Lavadia Pia. This was such gems custody until his death in 1882, when his sister Paula Lavadia happened to him in the custody of them. On the death of Paula Lavadia of happened in the care, preservation and custody of such gems add Pedro Rosales, and killed it, his daughter Paz Rosales, in turn succeeded him in such custody, preservation and care. A Rosales Paz's death, the crown and the jewels passed to the custody of her husband Baldomero Cosme. Baldomero After Cosme, these jewels became Manuel Soriano, who in turn was succeeded in the custody, conservation and management by the defendant here Rosario Cosme de Mendoza. Every year since 1880 to date, the jewelry in question is used to decorate the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Pagsanjan, none of which have been jewels such care or custody as owner had claimed to possess exclusive. The defendant Rosario Cosme Mendoza and his co-defendants do not claim to own the said jewelry. Indeed, the intestate of the late Baldomero Cosme, cameo No. 5494 of the Court of First Instance, that defendant and his co-defendants have told the court that they have never had pretensions to claim the domain of such jewelry or any part of the them. (See Exhibit B-2 by B-3).
Chanrobles virtual law library

On February 9, 1938, the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, in his capacity as administrator of the deceased intestate Baldomero Cosme, notify all persons interested in these jewelry I wanted to do a formal delivery of these jewels to the Bishop of Lina On Saturday next, or the February 12, 1938, informing them that they might witness the act of delivery (See Exhibit 4). Indeed, the February 12, 1938, the defendant and her husband were formally handed over the jewels, giving the document to that effect, cheeses document as Exhibit E of the plaintiffs and 2 defendants. Not being the plaintiffs in accordance with such delivery, about six people and gave plaintiffs in this case a document appointing the applicant as a bedroom Lavadia Engracia, who would have his care the crown and jewels in question (see Exhibit 3). Having raised the question of who should have custody of the crown jewels in question, and having come this fact known to the Bishop of Lipa, this, in turn, on June 21, 1938, grant deed relinquishing custody and administration of such crown jewels (See Exhibit D of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1). On the basis of the facts, the court stated that the contract existed between the original owner of the jewelry at issue and the first ones who had custody of them, was the deposit, according to this contract is to finido articles in 1758 and following of the Civil Code. Pia Lavadia first, and then Paula Lavadia and the descendants of the latter being one of them the appellant Rosario Cosme Mendoza, received and possessed, one after another, the said, only for purposes of custody, for, as the Court emphasizes in its decision, or those or the last used the same for their own benefit. If it was under a deposit agreement as received jewelry subject matter, first by Pia and Paula, then by the descendants of the latter include the appellant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, it is clear that there is the obligation of this to restore them

to their owners in the claim. The article has so 1766 of the Civil Code which reads: The Trustee is obliged to keep the thing and Restu, when so requested, the depositor, or their successors cause, or the person who has been designated in the contract. His responsibility for the care and the loss of the thing, shall be governed by the provisions of Tit. I of this book. The refund must be made with all the fruits and accessions of the thing deposited, if any of you, not be given to the depositary to withhold, as Sanchez says Roman (Roman Sanchez IV, 885), even under prexto to obtain compensation for other credits or allowances to cover expenses incurred for preservation.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobl es virtual law library

The owners of the jewelry primitavas concerned, they agreed to entrust the custody of them to algunasde them, reserving for himself the property experesamente. This shows that the theory of the appellants that the contract that those were not deposit that after all, as they say, no jewelry may be considered as belonging to other persons with respect to Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, as she descends one of susprimitivas owners, no force, because even among commoners one thing, one can be the depository, and when it is, is subject to the same obligations under the law to all depositary with respect to the conservation of thing with the care, diligence and interest of a good parent. Joint owner. The Fact That the depositary is a joint owner of the res does not alter the degree of diligence required of him. (18 CJ, 570). The appellees are descendants and heirs at law of Elizabeth Lavadia, Matea Lavadia Lavadia and Martina, and Lavadia Engracia, who was appointed to take over the couple custody of jewelry subject to question, is one of the original owners of the same, and the appellants are themselves the descendants and heirs of Pia and PaulaLavadia Lavadia. There is no evidence anywhere in the six primitivasdueas due no contributions toward the purchase of clothing or jewelry as often mentioned in the same proportion, the most reasonable conclusion is - and this is supported by a presumption of law (Art 393, Civil Code ) - they all prorate the cost of paying them each a share iqual. If this is true, then we must accept the conclusion of the court that the appellees are the owners of four-sixths of the jewelry, and chelate appellants are not but only of the two sixths partesrestantes. For consiquiente, having decided that the most are the appellees, entrust the custody and administration of these jewels to comply faithfully to the will of its original owner, appealed to the Lavadia Engracia, the only survivor of them, its decision must respected, because the administration and better enjoyment of the common thing, under Article 398 of the Civil Code are mandatory resolutions of the majority of the participants.
ch anroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobl es virtual law library

The argument that Mendoza Rosario Cosme and its predecessors have been serving with fidelity their cometidocomo Depositary does not argue in favor of the proposition that should not be removing the deposit because the deposit contract is such that allows the depositor to withdraw the depositary of the thing deposited, at any time they please, especially when the latter, as in the case of Cosme Mendoza Rosario has performed an act contrary to the order received, committing or attempting to entrust to another, custody and administration of the thing deposited, on their own and without the consent of the depositors or their heirs.
chanrobl esvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Not having found any error in the appealed decision of the court a quo, hereby, confirmed and condemned the appellants to pay costs. So ordered.
Chanroblesvirtu alawlibrary ch anrobles virtual law library

Imperial, Laurel, and Horrilleno Moran, JJ., Concur.