CREDIT TRANSACTION CASEDIGEST/ PAJUYO VS. COURT OF APPEALS/ G. R. NO. 146364/ 3 JUNE 2004/ 430 SCRA 492
CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST
PAJUYO VS. COURT OF APPEALS
G. R. NO. 146364, 3 JUNE 2004, 430 SCRA 492
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
An essential feature of
commodatum is that it is gratuitous, while another feature is that the use of
the thing belonging to another is for a certain period; If the use of the thing
is merely tolerated by the bailor, he can demand the return of the thing at
will, in which case the contractual relation is called a precarium; Precarium
is a kind of commodatum.
FACTS
On
8 December 1985, Pajuyo and private respondent Eddie Guevarra (“Guevarra”)
executed a Kasunduan or agreement. Pajuyo, as owner of the house, allowed
Guevarra to live in the house for free provided Guevarra would maintain the
cleanliness and orderliness of the house. Guevarra promised that he would
voluntarily vacate the premises on Pajuyo’s demand.
In
September 1994, Pajuyo informed Guevarra of his need of the house and demanded
that Guevarra vacate the house. Guevarra refused. Guevarra turned his back on
the Kasunduan on the sole ground that like him, Pajuyo is also a squatter.
Squatters, Guevarra pointed out, cannot enter into a contract involving the
land they illegally occupy. Guevarra insists that the contract is void.
ISSUE
Whether the contract is
that of a commudatum.
Whether Guiverra should
be ejected from the property.
RULING
On the first issue, court ruled in the negative.
The court held that an essential feature of commodatum is
that it is gratuitous, while another feature is that the use of the thing
belonging to another is for a certain period; If the use of the thing is merely
tolerated by the bailor, he can demand the return of the thing at will, in
which case the contractual relation is called a precarium; Precarium is a kind
of commodatum.
Here, the court held that the Kasunduan reveals that the
accommodation accorded by Pajuyo to Guevarra was not essentially gratuitous.
While the Kasunduan did not require Guevarra to pay rent, it obligated him to
maintain the property in good condition. The imposition of this obligation
makes the Kasunduan a contract different from a commodatum.
On the second issue of ejectment, the court held in the affirmative.
The court ruled here that the plaintiff allows the defendant to use his property by tolerance without any contract, the defendant is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate on demand, failing which, an action for unlawful detainer will lie.60 The defendant’s refusal to comply with the demand makes his continued possession of the property unlawful.