Scribd
Upload
294 views1 page

Liability in Palacio v. Sudario Case

Sudario was hired by Palacio to pasture her 81 cattle. After the pasturing, 33 cattle were missing. Sudario claimed the cattle died of disease or drowned in a flood. However, witnesses said 6 cattle died from overfeeding and no flood was proven. The court ruled Sudario was liable because as the depositary, the burden was on him to explain the loss and prove it was without fault or due to an unavoidable event, which he failed to do. Whether the contract was considered deposit or pasturing, Sudario's obligations remained the same.

Uploaded by

Jet Garcia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
294 views1 page

Liability in Palacio v. Sudario Case

Sudario was hired by Palacio to pasture her 81 cattle. After the pasturing, 33 cattle were missing. Sudario claimed the cattle died of disease or drowned in a flood. However, witnesses said 6 cattle died from overfeeding and no flood was proven. The court ruled Sudario was liable because as the depositary, the burden was on him to explain the loss and prove it was without fault or due to an unavoidable event, which he failed to do. Whether the contract was considered deposit or pasturing, Sudario's obligations remained the same.

Uploaded by

Jet Garcia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 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.

You might also like