G.R. No. L-17474; October 25, 1962
Republic of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Jose V. Bagtas, defendant, Felicidad M. Bagtas, Administratrix of the Intestate Estate left by the late Jose V. Bagtas, petitioner-appellant.

FACTS

On May 8, 1948, Jose V. Bagtas borrowed three breeding bulls from the Republic, through the Bureau of Animal Industry, under a one-year contract requiring a breeding fee. Upon expiration, he sought renewal but was granted only for one bull. Bagtas later offered to purchase the bulls at a depreciated value, which the government refused, demanding either their return or payment of full book value by October 31, 1950. Bagtas neither returned the bulls nor paid. The Republic filed an action for recovery. The trial court rendered judgment against Bagtas, ordering payment of the bulls’ value and breeding fees. Bagtas died on October 23, 1951, but his counsel failed to notify the trial court of his death as required by procedural rules. A writ of execution was later issued against his estate.
During execution proceedings, the administratrix, Felicidad M. Bagtas, moved to quash the writ. She claimed two bulls had been returned in 1952, and the third bull (Sahiniwal) was killed by stray bullets during a Huk raid in November 1953. She argued this loss was due to force majeure, relieving the estate of liability. The trial court denied her motion, prompting this appeal, which was certified to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the administratrix of the estate is liable for the value of the bull killed during a Huk raid, notwithstanding the claim of force majeure.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the writ of execution but held the estate liable for the value of the unreturned bull. The Court rejected the defense of force majeure. The contract, whether classified as a commodatum (loan for use) or a lease due to the breeding fee, imposed liability on the borrower. Applying the Civil Code, the Court ruled that even if it were a commodatum, a bailee is liable for loss due to a fortuitous event if the thing is kept beyond the stipulated period or was delivered with an appraisal of its value, absent a stipulation exempting the bailee. Here, the bull was kept well beyond the renewed loan period ending in May 1950 until its death in November 1953. Furthermore, the bulls were delivered with a book value. Therefore, the borrower’s estate assumed the risk of loss.
The Court also addressed procedural matters, noting the failure of the deceased’s counsel to notify the court of his death as required by the Rules of Court. This failure meant the judgment could validly be executed against the estate initially. However, since special proceedings for the estate had been instituted in another court, the money judgment could no longer be enforced by ordinary execution. The claim must instead be presented to the probate court for payment. The Court modified the liability, noting two bulls had been returned. Thus, the estate is liable only for P859.63, the value of the single bull not returned.