G.R. No. L-47996; May 9, 1941
ENGRACIA LAVADIA Y OTROS, demandantes y apelados, vs. ROSARIO COSME DE MENDOZA Y OTROS, demandados y apelantes.

FACTS

The subject of the litigation is the possession and custody of certain jewels (a crown, necklace, belt, bracelet, silver-gilt plate, and other ornaments) made in 1880. Six pious ladies from Pagsanjan, Laguna—Martina, Matea, Isabel, Paula, Pia, and Engracia, all surnamed Lavadia—had these jewels made at their own expense to adorn the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the patron saint of the municipality. They retained ownership of the jewels, ceding only their use to the image. The plaintiffs and defendants, except for Engracia Lavadia who is one of the original six, are descendants of the other five original owners. The defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, a descendant of Paula Lavadia, who had the latest custody of the jewels, sought to deliver the crown to the Catholic Bishop of Lipa to hold, subject to the image’s use according to the owners’ will. The plaintiffs, descendants of Isabel, Matea, and Martina Lavadia, and Engracia Lavadia herself, filed this action to reclaim possession and custody of all the jewels. The jewels were deposited under lock at the Bank of the Philippine Islands by Rosario Cosme de Mendoza. The original agreement was that the jewels would remain with contributor Pia Lavadia. Upon her death in 1882, custody passed to her sister Paula Lavadia, then successively to Paula’s husband Pedro Rosales, their daughter Paz Rosales, Paz’s husband Baldomero Cosme, then to Manuel Soriano, and finally to the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza. Annually from 1880, the jewels were used to decorate the image, and none of the custodians claimed exclusive ownership. On February 12, 1938, Rosario Cosme de Mendoza formally delivered the jewels to the Bishop of Lipa. The plaintiffs, objecting to this delivery, executed a document designating Engracia Lavadia as the custodian. Subsequently, the Bishop of Lipa renounced custody of the jewels on June 21, 1938.

ISSUE

1. Whether the contract between the original owners and the successive custodians of the jewels was one of deposit (depósito).
2. Whether the plaintiffs, as owners of four-sixths of the jewels pro indiviso, have the right to designate the custodian.
3. Whether the defendant Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, as a co-owner and fiduciary, can be deprived of administration and custody absent incapacitating reasons.
4. Whether the lower court erred in not declaring that the custodians from Pia Lavadia to Rosario Cosme de Mendoza faithfully performed their duty.
5. Whether the lower court erred in denying a new trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
1. The contract was one of deposit (depósito) as defined in Articles 1758 et seq. of the Civil Code. Pia Lavadia, Paula Lavadia, and her descendants, including Rosario Cosme de Mendoza, received and held the jewels solely for custody, not for their own benefit. As depositary, Rosario Cosme de Mendoza is obligated under Article 1766 to return the deposited item when demanded by the depositor or their heirs. Her act of delivering the jewels to the Bishop of Lipa without the consent of the owners or their heirs was contrary to the deposit agreement, justifying the withdrawal of the deposit.
2. The lower court correctly declared the plaintiffs as owners of four-sixths of the jewels. In the absence of evidence that the six original owners contributed unequal amounts, the legal presumption under Article 393 of the Civil Code is that they contributed equal shares. Therefore, the plaintiffs (descendants of four original owners) own four-sixths pro indiviso, and the defendants (descendants of two original owners) own two-sixths. Pursuant to Article 398 of the Civil Code, the agreements of the majority of the co-owners are binding for the administration and better enjoyment of the common property. The majority (the plaintiffs) decided to entrust custody to Engracia Lavadia, the sole surviving original owner, and this decision must be respected.
3. The defendant’s faithful performance as depositary does not preclude the withdrawal of the deposit, as a depositor may reclaim the deposited item at any time, especially when the depositary has performed an act contrary to the trust, as in this case.
4. The denial of a new trial was not erroneous.
The appealed decision was confirmed, and the appellants were condemned to pay the costs.