G.R. No. 2908 ANICETA PALACIO v. DIONISIO SUDARIO

FACTS
Aniceta Palacio (plaintiff) contracted with Dionisio Sudario (defendant), then municipal president, for pasturing 81 head of cattle. She was to give the defendant one‑half of any calves born and pay one‑half peso per branded calf. After demanding the whole herd, only 48 cattle were returned; the plaintiff sued for the remaining 33.

Defendant raised two defenses: (1) the agreement was between the plaintiff and the three herdsmen, with the defendant merely offering his offices; (2) the missing cattle died of disease or were lost in a flood. The trial court found the defendant’s letter excusing the loss proved his participation and, finding the evidence on the cattle’s fate inconclusive, held the loss presumed to be his fault. Defendant also invoked a six‑year prescription under the 1930 Code of Civil Procedure, which the court rejected, applying the pre‑1930 fifteen‑year prescription (Civil Code art. 1964).

ISSUE
1. Whether the defendant, as the party who received the cattle for pasturing, is liable for the loss of the 33 head.
2. Whether the action is barred by the statute of limitations.

RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court. It treated the arrangement as a contract of deposit (or, alternatively, a customary pasturing contract) and applied Art. 1183 and Art. 1769 of the Civil Code, placing the burden of explaining the loss on the depositary and presuming fault in its absence. The defendant failed to prove loss without fault or by force majeure; thus he is liable for the missing cattle.

Regarding prescription, the action arose before the 1930 procedural code and is governed by the earlier law; the applicable limitation period is fifteen years, not six. Consequently, the action is timely.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed; costs of both instances are awarded. The case is to be entered after twenty days and remanded for execution.