Necessary Deposit: A Borrowed P100,000 From B, and As Security Thereof

CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Chapter 3
NECESSARY DEPOSIT
Art. 1996. A deposit is necessary:

(1) When it is made in compliance with a legal obliga-
tion;
(2) When it takes place on the occasion of any calam-
ity, such as fire, storm, flood, pillage, shipwreck, or other
similar events.
COMMENT:
(1) Example of Necessary Deposit Made in Compliance
With a Legal Obligation
A borrowed P100,000 from B, and as security thereof,
pledged his diamond ring. If B uses the ring without the
authority of A, A may ask that the ring be judicially or ex-
trajudicially deposited. (Art. 2104, Civil Code).
[NOTE: Art. 2104 — “The creditor cannot use the thing
pledged, without the authority of the owner, and if he should
do so, or should misuse the thing in any other way, the owner
may ask that it be judicially or extrajudicially deposited.
When the preservation of the thing pledged requires its use,
it must be used by the creditor but only for that purpose.”]
[NOTE: Other examples of necessary deposits in compli-
ance with a legal obligation:
(a) cash deposits to be made by certain officers or officials;
(b) deposits to be made by those who desire to use fire
arms.]
(2) Example of a Necessary Deposit Made on the Occasion

of a Calamity
In a fire, Jose saves Pedro’s car. Jose is in possession of
the car; Jose is supposed to be its depositary. Deposits made
954
CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES Art. 1997
on the occasion of a calamity have been fittingly termed de-

positos miserables.
(3) Two Other Kinds of Necessary Deposits

(a) That made by travellers in hotels or inns. (See Art. 1998,
Civil Code).
(b) That made with common carriers.
Art. 1997. The deposit referred to in No. 1 of the preced-

ing article shall be governed by the provisions of the law
establishing it, and in case of its deficiency, by the rules
on voluntary deposit.
The deposit mentioned in No. 2 of the preceding article
shall be regulated by the provisions concerning voluntary
deposit and by Article 2168.
COMMENT:
(1) Governing Rules for Deposits Made in Compliance with

a Legal Obligation
(a) Firstly, the law creating said deposits.
(b) Suppletorily, the rule on voluntary deposits.
(2) Rules Governing Deposits Made Because of a Calamity

(a) Firstly, the rules on Voluntary Deposits.
(b) Also, Art. 2168 of the Civil Code.
(3) Art. 2168

“When during a fire, flood, storm, or other calamity,
property is saved from destruction by another person without
the knowledge of the owner, the latter is bound to pay the
former just compensation.”
(NOTE: Art. 2168 establishes a quasi-contract.)
955
Art. 1998 CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Art. 1998. The deposit of effects made by travellers

in hotels or inns shall also be regarded as necessary. The
keepers of hotels or inns shall be responsible for them as
depositaries, provided that notice was given to them, or to
their employees, of the effects brought by the guests and
that, on the part of the latter, they take the precautions
which said hotel-keepers or their substitutes advised rela-
tive to the care and vigilance of their effects.
COMMENT:
(1) Example of Liability of Hotel or Inn-keepers
A traveller spent a night in a Makati hotel. A hotel serv-
ant maliciously destroyed the cellular phone of the traveller.
Is the hotel-keeper liable?
ANS.: Yes, provided that he had previously been informed
about the cellular phone, and provided furthermore that the
traveller followed any precaution that may have been given
by the hotel-keeper or his substitutes regarding the care and
vigilance of said property.
(2) ‘Innkeeper’ Defined

The keeper of an inn for the lodging of travellers and
passengers for a reasonable compensation. He is distinguished
from the proprietor of other public houses of entertainment
in that he publicly holds out his place as one where all tran-
sient persons who choose to come will be received as guests.
(Holstein v. Phillips, 146 N.C. 366).
(3) ‘Occasional Entertainment’ Defined

The occasional entertainment of travellers does not of
itself make one an innkeeper. (Holstein v. Phillips, supra).
(4) ‘Travellers’ Defined

The word travellers refers to transient and was certainly
not meant to include ordinary or regular boarders in any apart-
ment, house, inn, or hotel. Distance travelled is immaterial.
956
Notice furthermore that the law sometimes uses the term

guests instead of travellers. For purposes of the provisions on
this kind of necessary deposit, the two terms are synonymous.
(Holstein v. Phillips, supra).
(5) Reasons for the Liability of the Hotels or Inns

(a) It is a good policy to encourage travel;
(b) Travellers and strangers must of necessity trust in the
honesty and vigilance of the innkeeper and those in his
employ;
(c) The opportunity and temptation to connive with evil-
disposed persons and to afford facilities in stealing the
goods of those in his house;
(d) The innkeeper is as a rule better able to protect himself
against loss than the guest who is practically helpless
to enforce his rights. (Holstein v. Phillips, supra).
(6) When Liability Begins

Liability or responsibility by the hotel or innkeeper com-
mences as soon as there is an evident intention on the part
of the travellers to avail himself of the accommodations of the
hotel or inn. It does not matter whether compensation has
already been paid or not, or whether the guest has already
partaken of food and drink or not.
(7) Meaning of Effects

All kinds of personal property, like jewelry, fountain
pens, cash.
(8) Nature of Precautions to Be Given to the Guests

They may be given directly or orally to the guests, or
they may be typed, mimeographed or printed on posters which
are usually set up and posted both in the lobby as well as
in the individual rooms. Note however that “the hotel-keeper
cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices to
the effect that he is not liable for the articles brought by the
guest.” (Art. 2003, 1st sentence, Civil Code).
957
Arts. 1999-2000 CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Art. 1999. The hotel-keeper is liable for the vehicles,

animals and articles which have been introduced or placed
in the annexes of the hotel.
COMMENT:
Liability Extends to Objects in Annexes
The Article is self-explanatory.
Art. 2000. The responsibility referred to in the two preced-

ing articles shall include the loss of, or injury to the personal
property of the guests caused by the servants or employees of
the keepers of hotels or inns as well as by strangers; but not
that which may proceed from any force majeure. The fact that
the travellers are constrained to rely on the vigilance of the
keeper of the hotels or inns shall be considered in determin-
ing the degree of care required of him.
COMMENT:
(1) Rules for Liability
(a) As a rule, the master is responsible for the acts of servants
or employees of the hotel provided of course that notice
has been given and the proper precautions taken.
(b) The master is also liable for the acts of strangers, like
malicious mischief or theft.
(2) Non-Liability for Force Majeure

The master should be exempted in case:
(a) there has, for example, been robbery by intimidation of
persons, or
(b) a fortuitous event, like flood.
(3) Problem
A was guest in B’s hotel. C, a drunkard, entered the
hotel and destroyed A’s personal belongings despite the fact
that A had given proper notice and had followed all precau-
tions. Will B be liable?
958
ANS.: Yes. This is an act of a stranger, not considered

a force majeure under this provision of the law. The manage-
ment should have taken the necessary steps to prevent the
occurrence of things like this.
Art. 2001. The act of a thief or robber, who has entered

the hotel is not deemed force majeure, unless it is done with
the use of arms or through an irresistible force.
COMMENT:
(1) Robbery Through Force Upon Things
Example:
In the middle of the night, A went up the fire escape,
slowly raised a guest’s window, went inside the room, and
stole the guest’s shoes. Is the hotel-keeper liable?
ANS.: Yes. He should have seen to it that no thief could
enter the building without being noticed, for example, by a
watchman. This is a case of robbery with force upon things.
(2) Query
The bell boy of a hotel, at the point of a gun, asked the
watchman of a hotel’s safe to open it for him. The bell boy
then run away taking with him some jewelries deposited in
said safe by the guests. Will the hotel-keeper be liable?
ANS.: Yes. It is true that here the robbery was commit-
ted with use of arms, but then the bell boy was the servant
of the hotel-keeper. The latter will be liable, not because of
Art. 2001 which evidently refers to a stranger, but because
of Art. 2000.
(3) Reason for Art. 2001

The innkeeper is bound to keep his house safe from the
intrusion of thieves, day and night, and if they are allowed
to gain access to the house, and specially without the use of
such force as will show its marks upon the house, it is fairly
presumable that the innkeeper is at fault.
959
Arts. 2002-2003 CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Art. 2002. The hotel-keeper is not liable for compensa-

tion if the loss is due to the acts of the guest, his family,
servants or visitors, or if the loss arises from the character
of the things brought into the hotel.
COMMENT:
(1) Instances When Hotel-Keeper Is Not Liable
Since the law does not distinguish what kind of acts are
referred to, it may be inferred that the acts mentioned in the
Article be either the result of a voluntary malicious act or
simply of negligence.
(2) Examples
(a) Act of the guest himself — when turning on his radio,
he may have forgotten to attach the transformer.
(b) Acts of visitors of the guest — A while entertaining B in
his room suddenly noticed that B was hurling his (A’s)
radio into the street, or that C, another visitor had just
departed taking away with him A’s shoes.
(c) Acts of the guest’s own servant — the servant may have
appropriated the thing for himself. (Do not confuse this
with the acts of the hotel-keeper’s servant.)
Art. 2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from

responsibility by posting notices to the effect that he is not
liable for the articles brought by the guest. Any stipula-
tion between the hotel-keeper and the guest whereby the
responsibility of the former as set forth in Articles 1998 to
2001 is suppressed or diminished shall be void.
COMMENT:
Effect of Notices Negating Liability
Example:
A is a guest in B’s hotel. In the lobby, there was a no-
tice that B would not be liable in any way for the loss of A’s
effects. Subsequently, a bell boy stole A’s watch. B will still
be liable.
960
Art. 2004. The hotel-keeper has a right to retain the

things brought into the hotel by the guest, as a security for
credits on account of lodging, and supplies usually furnish
to the guests.
COMMENT:
(1) Right of Retention Given to Hotel-Keeper
Example:
A was a transient in B’s hotel. A left without settling
his account but forgot one valise in the hotel. B can retain
said valise as security for the payment of A’s account.
(2) Right to Sell

Has the hotel owner the right to sell the valise? In other
words, is there a right of retention here by way of pledge?
According to a member of the Code Commission, this
right of retention is in the nature of a pledge created by
operation of law, and thus the hotel-keeper is allowed the
power of sale under Arts. 2121 and 2122 of the new Civil
Code. (VI Capistrano, Civil Code of the Phil., p. 402).
(3) Why the Right to Retain Is Given

This is given to compensate the innkeeper for the ex-
traordinary liabilities imposed upon him by the law. (Singer
Manufacturing Co. v. Millar, 52 Minn. 516).
(4) When Lien or Retention Does Not Exist

It does not exist when the debtor is not a guest of the
hotel, as understood by the term traveller. (Elliot v. Martin,
105 Mich. 506).
961

Necessary Deposit: A Borrowed P100,000 From B, and As Security Thereof

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Necessary Deposit: A Borrowed P100,000 From B, and As Security Thereof

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Necessary Deposit: A Borrowed P100,000 From B, and As Security Thereof

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Art. 1996. A deposit is necessary:

(2) Example of a Necessary Deposit Made on the Occasion

on the occasion of a calamity have been fittingly termed de-

(3) Two Other Kinds of Necessary Deposits

Art. 1997. The deposit referred to in No. 1 of the preced-

(1) Governing Rules for Deposits Made in Compliance with

(2) Rules Governing Deposits Made Because of a Calamity

(3) Art. 2168

Art. 1998. The deposit of effects made by travellers

(2) ‘Innkeeper’ Defined

(3) ‘Occasional Entertainment’ Defined

(4) ‘Travellers’ Defined

Notice furthermore that the law sometimes uses the term

(5) Reasons for the Liability of the Hotels or Inns

(6) When Liability Begins

(7) Meaning of Effects

(8) Nature of Precautions to Be Given to the Guests

Art. 1999. The hotel-keeper is liable for the vehicles,

Art. 2000. The responsibility referred to in the two preced-

(2) Non-Liability for Force Majeure

ANS.: Yes. This is an act of a stranger, not considered

Art. 2001. The act of a thief or robber, who has entered

(3) Reason for Art. 2001

Art. 2002. The hotel-keeper is not liable for compensa-

Art. 2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from

Art. 2004. The hotel-keeper has a right to retain the

(2) Right to Sell

(3) Why the Right to Retain Is Given

(4) When Lien or Retention Does Not Exist

You might also like