Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 99 views

    1163 - CaseDigest - The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro - Gregorio de La Peña - Ainna - Fathi

    Uploaded by

    AinnaMacalos
    This case involves a dispute over 6,641 pesos collected by a deceased priest, Father Agustin de la Peña, on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro to construct a leper hospital. The money was deposited into Father de la Peña's personal bank account, along with his own funds. During the Philippine Revolution, Father de la Peña was arrested and his bank account was confiscated, believing the funds were for revolutionary purposes. The Supreme Court held that neither Father de la Peña nor his estate administrator were liable for the loss of the funds, as the confiscation by military authorities during wartime was not reasonably foreseeable based on provisions of the Civil Code regarding obligations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    1163 - CaseDigest - The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro - Gregorio de La Peña - Ainna - Fathi

    Uploaded by

    AinnaMacalos
    99 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over 6,641 pesos collected by a deceased priest, Father Agustin de la Peña, on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro to construct a leper hospital. The money was deposited into Father de la Peña's personal bank account, along with his own funds. During the Philippine Revolution, Father de la Peña was arrested and his bank account was confiscated, believing the funds were for revolutionary purposes. The Supreme Court held that neither Father de la Peña nor his estate administrator were liable for the loss of the funds, as the confiscation by military authorities during wartime was not reasonably foreseeable based on provisions of the Civil Code regarding obligations.

    Original Description:

    1163_CaseDigest_The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro_Gregorio de la Peña _Ainna_Fathi

    Original Title

    1163_CaseDigest_The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro_Gregorio de la Peña _Ainna_Fathi

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over 6,641 pesos collected by a deceased priest, Father Agustin de la Peña, on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro to construct a leper hospital. The money was deposited into Father de la Peña's personal bank account, along with his own funds. During the Philippine Revolution, Father de la Peña was arrested and his bank account was confiscated, believing the funds were for revolutionary purposes. The Supreme Court held that neither Father de la Peña nor his estate administrator were liable for the loss of the funds, as the confiscation by military authorities during wartime was not reasonably foreseeable based on provisions of the Civil Code regarding obligations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    99 views2 pages

    1163 - CaseDigest - The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro - Gregorio de La Peña - Ainna - Fathi

    Uploaded by

    AinnaMacalos
    This case involves a dispute over 6,641 pesos collected by a deceased priest, Father Agustin de la Peña, on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro to construct a leper hospital. The money was deposited into Father de la Peña's personal bank account, along with his own funds. During the Philippine Revolution, Father de la Peña was arrested and his bank account was confiscated, believing the funds were for revolutionary purposes. The Supreme Court held that neither Father de la Peña nor his estate administrator were liable for the loss of the funds, as the confiscation by military authorities during wartime was not reasonably foreseeable based on provisions of the Civil Code regarding obligations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Case:

    The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro v. Gregorio de la Pea (26 PHIL. 144),
    Nov. 21, 1913
    FACTS

    ISSUE/S
    LAWS

    PETITIONER-APPELLEE: The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro


    RESPONDENT-APPELLANT: Gregorio de la Pea (administrator of the estate of
    Father Agustin de la Pea
    PONENTE: Moreland, J.

    The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro brought action against the appellant, Gregorio
    de la Pea, who was the administrator of the property of the deceased Fr. Agustin
    de la Pea (deceased- 1900), to recover the sum of P6,641 (Mexican currency) in
    the Court of First Instance in Iloilo.

    The amount of money in question, was collected by the deceased priest, as an
    authorized representative to collect fees for the construction of a leper hospital.
    The appellee was a trustee of such charitable bequest. The same amount was
    deposited, along with Fr. de la Peas personal funds, in the Hong Kong and
    Shanghai Bank of Iloilo.

    During the war of the revolution, Fr. de la Pea was arrested by the military
    authorities as a political prisoner. His bank funds were confiscated as the military
    authorities thought that the funds were for revolutionary purposes.

    The CFI of Iloilo awarded the plaintiff P6,641 with interest at the legal rate from the
    beginning of action, thus this appeal.
    Whether Father de la Pea is liable for the loss of the bequest money by placing it
    in his personal bank account?
    Article 1094 (The Civil Code of the Philippines): A person obliged to give something
    is also bound to preserve it with the diligence pertaining to a good father of a
    family.

    Article 1163 (The New Civil Code of the Philippines): Every person obliged to give
    something is also obliged to take care of it with the proper diligence of a good
    father of a family, unless the law or the stipulation of the parties requires another
    standard of care. (1094a)

    Article 1105 (The Civil Code of the Philippines): 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

    Article 1174 (The New Civil Code of the Philippines): Except in cases expressly
    specified by the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the
    nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
    responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or which, though
    foreseen, were inevitable. (1105a)

    HOLDINGS

    No. Fr. de la Pea and his trustee (or estate administrator), Gregorio de la Pea is
    not liable for the loss of the bequest money.

    Fr. de la Peas liability is determined by portions in the Civil Code that relate to
    obligations (Book 4, Title 1.) and the New Civil Code (Book 4, Title 1.)

    Although Article 1094 of the Civil Code, now, Article 1163 (The New Civil Code)
    discusses that a person obliged to give something is also bound to preserve it with
    the diligence pertaining to a good father of a family, it also states that 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 (Article 1105, the Civil Code and
    Article 1174, The New Civil Code).

    The precise question is not about negligence as we cannot measure nor say if Fr. de
    la Pea was indeed negligent by depositing the donated funds in his bank. We
    cannot also do the same if he just left the funds in his home or if he deposited the
    amount in a separate account as a trustee. No law prohibited him from depositing
    the amount as he did and no law changed his responsibility because of that act.
    While one who is under obligation to give a thing is obliged, when he foresees
    events which may be dangerous to his trust, to exhaust all means and measures to
    elude or, if unavoidable, to mitigate the effects of those events, the Supreme Court
    held that in choosing between two means equally legal, with two possible same
    repercussions, making him negligent in selecting either, Fr. de la Pea was not
    responsible for the loss of the amount in question.

    The judgment was reversed.

    You might also like