G.R. No. 16753 ; June 8, 1922
ROSA GARCIA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PLACIDO ESCUDERO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Gregorio Garcia Verdejo died in 1895, naming his three sisters (the plaintiffs) as his heirs and appointing Sisenando Marasigan and Placido Escudero (the defendant) as administrators of his estate. Testamentary proceedings were instituted. The defendant was entrusted with the properties of the deceased. The plaintiffs, as testamentary heirs, filed an action to be declared heirs and to compel the defendant to deliver the inherited properties and render an account of his administration from February 24, 1896. The lower court ordered the defendant to deliver the properties and render accounts. The defendant submitted his accounts, which the plaintiffs contested. The trial court partially approved the accounts, rejecting certain items (e.g., “Sundries” expenses) and ordering the defendant to account for the products of coconut lands for specific periods, including a time when the properties were seized by revolutionists. The defendant appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the defendant is liable for the value of personal properties (furniture and jewels) lost in a fire.
2. Whether the defendant is liable for the value of cattle that allegedly died of rinderpest.
3. Whether the defendant is obligated to account for the fruits of coconut lands during the period they were seized by revolutionists (1896-1902).
4. Whether the defendant must render a detailed account of products from the coconut lands for the period 1902-1906.
5. Whether the “Sundries” expenses in the defendant’s accounts should be approved.

RULING

1. No. The loss of the furniture and jewels due to a fire was a fortuitous event. The defendant, as a depositary, is not liable for losses due to force majeure.
2. No. The defendant’s testimony, based on personal knowledge, sufficiently proved that the cattle died of rinderpest, another fortuitous event. No timely objection was made to this testimony.
3. No. The defendant should be relieved from accounting for the products from 1896 to 1902. The evidence showed the coconut lands were seized by revolutionists in 1899 and were a forest by 1902. Due to the Philippine Revolution and his residence far from the lands, he could not gather fruits.
4. No. A detailed account for 1902-1906 is unnecessary. The defendant’s statement that the produce was minimal or barely covered expenses was sufficient, as it was not proven the lands produced anything accountable.
5. Yes. The “Sundries” expenses were proved by the defendant’s testimony, which the plaintiffs’ evidence failed to rebut. These items should be approved.
The Supreme Court approved the defendant’s account in its entirety and revoked the appealed rulings.