TOPIC Deposit

CASE NO. G.R. No. L-6913

CASE NAME Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro vs. Dela Peña | Nov. 21, 1913 | Moreland, J.
MEMBER Sampang

DOCTRINE
"No one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were
inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation
so declares." (Art. 1105.)
The estate of a trustee is not liable for the loss of the trust fund placed under his care if the loss was caused
by “x x x events which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the
exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation so declares”

RECIT-READY DIGEST
Father De la Peña’s books in 1898 showed that he had in his possession the sum of P6,641.00,
which he collected on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro for the construction of a leper hospital.
In the same year, Father also deposited in his personal account with Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank the
amount of Php 19,000.00. During the war, he was arrested because he was deemed to be an insurgent who
collected money for revolutionary purposes. Consequently, a confiscation order was likewise made on his
personal account. The order was to turn over the funds in the bank to the US Government. The issue before
the court is W/N included in his personal account was the amount of the trust fund worth Php 6,641.00, and
W/N his estate should be liable for the loss of the same. The Court ruled that included in his account was
he trust fund but his estate should not be liable for its loss because the confiscation of his funds in the bank
is a fortuitous event that he could not have foreseen. Article 1105 of the Civil Code states that generally,
one should not be liable for fortuitous events.

FACTS
 Parties:
o The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro is the trustee of a charitable donation made for the
construction of a leper hospital.
o Father Agustin de la Peña was the duly authorized representative of the Roman Catholic
Bishop of Jaro to receive the said donation.
o The Gregorio de la Peña is the administrator1 of the estate of Father De la Peña.
 This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance (CFI) awarding to the Bishop of
Jaro the sum of Php 6,641 with legal interest from the beginning of the action.
 In 1898 the books of Father De la Peña, as trustee, showed that he collected the sum of P6,641.00,
on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro for the aforesaid charitable purposes.
 In the same year, he deposited in his personal account the amount of P19,000 in the Hongkong and
Shanghai Bank at Iloilo.
 During the war of the revolution, Father De la Peña was arrested by the military authorities as a
political prisoner because he was claimed to be an insurgent and that the funds thus deposited had
been collected by him for revolutionary purposes.
 While detained, a confiscation order was issued to the bank for the turnover of the sum deposited
in the bank in favor of the US Government.

1
Executor is nominated within the Will of a deceased person. If there is no Will, an Administrator is appointed by
a Court to manage or administer a decedent’s estate.

1
ISSUE/S and HELD
1. W/N the P6,641 of trust funds was included in the P19,000 deposited? YES
2. W/N the estate of the deceased Fr. Agustin should be liable for the loss of the trust fund? NO.

RATIO
1. On the issue of inclusion of the trust fund in his personal account
a. Based on the examination of the facts of the case, the said trust funds were a part of the
funds deposited and which were removed and confiscated by the military authorities of the
United States.
2. On the issue of liability of the estate of the deceased for the loss of the trust fund
a. The rationale of the Court is based on the Civil Code "no one shall be liable for events
which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the
exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation so
declares." (Art. 1105.)
b. The fact that he deposited in his personal account the amount he collected on behalf of the
Bishop of Jaro does NOT make Father Agustin a debtor who is liable to repay the money
at all hazards.
c. If the money had been forcibly taken from his pocket or from his house by the military
forces of one of the combatants during a state of war, it is clear that under the provisions
of the Civil Code he would have been exempt from responsibility.
d. There was no law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did and there was no law which
changed his responsibility be reason of the deposit. While it may be true that one who is
under obligation to do or give a thing is in duty bound, when he sees events approaching
the results of which will be dangerous to his trust, to take all reasonable means and
measures to escape or, if unavoidable, to temper the effects of those events, we do not feel
constrained to hold that, in choosing between two means equally legal, he is culpably
negligent in selecting one whereas he would not have been if he had selected the other.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
 The court, therefore, finds and declares that the money which is the subject matter of this action
was deposited by Father De la Peña in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo;
 that said money was forcibly taken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during
the war of the insurrection; and that said Father De la Peña was not responsible for its loss.

DISSENTING
Main Point: Technically speaking, whether Father De la Peña was a trustee or an agent of the plaintiff his
books showed that in 1898 he had in his possession as trustee or agent the sum of P6,641 belonging to the
plaintiff as the head of the church. This money was then clothed with all the immunities and protection with
which the law seeks to invest trust funds. When De la Peña mixed this trust fund with his own and
deposited the whole in the bank to his personal account or credit, he by this act stamped on the said
fund his own private marks and unclothed it of all the protection it had. If this money had been
deposited in the name of De la Peña as trustee or agent of the plaintiff, I think that it may be presumed that
the military authorities would not have confiscated it for the reason that they were looking for insurgent
funds only.