Lavadia v.

Cosme
G.R. No. L-47996
Diaz, J.

May 9, 1941

Facts:
-

Six pious ladies (sisters Martina and Matea, sisters Pia and Paula, and sisters Isabel and Engracia
all named Lavadia) contributed their own jewelry and money in the creation of pieces of
jewelry (golden crown encrusted with jewelry, a necklace of jewels and gem, a belt embedded
with bright jewels, a gold necklace completely embedded with gems, a gold bracelet likewise
embedded with gems, a sterling silver plate with jewels on top, and various coin pieces of gold
and silver) that were used to adorn the Our Lady Senora de Guadalupe of Pagsajan, Laguna. Said
pieces of jewelry were maintained as the properties of the six and were used solely for the
adornment of the said patroness.
o It was agreed upon by all of them that Pia Lavadia shall keep the articles (the pieces of
jewelry).
Eventually, the ladiesexcept Engracia Lavadia, who was then still alivedied and was each
succeeded by their own respective heirs.
o Pia Lavadias responsibility to keep and preserve the articles was passed unto her sister,
Paula Lavadia. When the latter died, it then pertained to her husband, Pedro Rosales, until
the latters death. After his demise, the same passed unto their daughter Paz Rosales,
who, upon her death, passed the same to her husband Baldomero Cosme. After
Baldomero, the same was given to one Manuel Soriano, who in turn was succeeded by
defendant herein Rosario Cosme y Mendoza.
Feb. 9, 1938: Defendant notified all persons interested in the jewels that she wanted to make a
formal delivery of the same to the Bishop of Lipa next Saturday, Feb. 12, 1938. This actually
pushed through the next Saturday an a formal delivery of the pieces of jewelry was effected to the
Bishop.
o Plaintiffs (descendants of Isabel, Matea and Martina Lavadia + Engracia Lavadia)
objected such delivery, and in turn revoked the custody given to Rosario (as the heir of
Paula) and assigned the same to Engracia Lavadia, the only living member of the original
six. Defendant, in turn, contested the revocation of such custody.
Lower Court: ruled in favor of plaintiffs
o Since 4/6 of the share belonged to the plaintiff while only 2/6 (1/3) of the share belonged
to defendant, the plaintiffs choice must be given more weight than defendants.

Hence, this petition.

Issues/held:
-

SC: the contract that existed between the original owners and the ones who are now in
custody of them was that of a deposit.
o Pia Lavadia, followed by her sister Paula Lavadia and the latters descendents were only
in custody of the articles (pieces of jewelry); none of them used the same for their own
benefit.
o As such, being a contract of deposit, there is a clear obligation on the part of defendant to
return the same upon demand.

Article 1766 CC: The depository is obliged to keep the thing and return it, when so
requested, to the depositor, or his successors in interest, or a person who has been
designated in the contract. His responsibility for the care and loss of the thing shall be
governed by the provisions of Title I of this book.
o Even among co-owners, one of them can also be a depositary, and that the latter (coowner/depositary) is subject to the same obligations with respect to the conservation of
the thing deposited.
If no record exists as to prove the proportion of which each of the original six contributed to the
creation of the jewels, it would be presumed as equal. Hence, since plaintiff represents 4 of the 6
sisters (heirs of Isabel, Matea, Martina + Engracia Lavadia) and defendant only 2 (an heir of
Paula, who succeeded Pia Lavadia), then the decision of the majority (plaintiffs) should be
respected, and that the custodial right given to defendant must be withdrawn as per the formers
request.
o Art. 398, CC: administration and better enjoyment of the thing in common derives from
agreements decided by most partakers.
Deposit agreement allows the depositor to withdraw from the depositary the thing deposited at
anytime he/she so wishes. All the more in the present case, where defendant performed an act to
transfer the administration of the pieces of jewelry without the consent of others.
o