Palacio v. Sudario digest
1
Palacio v. Sudario – GARCIA Jan 2. 1907 Facts: Plaintiff Aniceta Palacio made an arrangement for the pasturing of her 81 cattles to herdsman/defendant Sudario. In return for which, Palacio has to give half of the calves that might be born and was to pay Sudario half a peso for each calf. After the pasturing arrangement, Palacio made a demand for the whole, 48 were afterwards returned to her. This action is brought to recover the remaining 33. Sudario in reply to the demand for the cattle, in which he seeks to excuse himself for the loss of the missing animals. Sudario claimed that the 33 cows either died of disease or were drowned in a flood. However, the defendant's witnesses swore that of the cows that perished, 6 died from overfeeding, and they failed to make clear the happening of any flood sufficient to destroy the others. Issue: Whether or not Sudario is liable. Held/Ratio: Yes. If we consider the contract as one of deposit, then Sudario is liable. Under article 1183 of the Civil Code, the burden of explanation of the loss rested upon the depositary and under article 1769 the fault is presumed to be his. In this case, the defendant has not succeeded in showing that the loss occurred either without fault on his part or by reason of caso fortuito. If, however, the contract be not one strictly of deposit but one according to a local custom for the pasturing of cattle, the obligations of the parties remain the same.
-
Upload
jet-garcia -
Category
Documents
-
view
372 -
download
13
description
Palacio v. Sudario digest
Transcript of Palacio v. Sudario digest
Palacio v. Sudario GARCIAJan 2. 1907Facts: Plaintif Aniceta Palacio made an arrangement for the pasturing of her 81 cattles to herdsman/defendant Sudario. In return for which, Palacio has to give half of the calves that might be born and was to pa Sudario half a peso for each calf. After the pasturing arrangement, Palacio made a demand for the whole, !8 were afterwards returned to her. "his action is brought to recover the remaining ##. Sudario in repl to the demand for the cattle, in which he see$s to e%cuse himself for the loss of the missing animals. Sudario claimed that the ## cows either died of disease or were drowned in a &ood. 'owever, the defendant(s witnesses swore that of the cows that perished, ) died from overfeeding, and the failed to ma$e clear the happening of an &ood su*cient to destro the others.Issue: +hether or not Sudario is liable.eld!Ratio:,es. If we consider the contract as one of deposit, then Sudario is liable. -nder article 118# of the .ivil .ode, the burden of e%planation of the loss rested upon the depositar and under article 1/)0 the fault is presumed to be his. In this case, the defendant has not succeeded in showing that the loss occurred either without fault on his part or b reason of caso fortuito. If, however, the contract be not one strictl of deposit but one according to a local custom for the pasturing of cattle, the obligations of the parties remain the same.
