G.R. No. L-26278 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-26278, August 4, 1927

Leon Sibal

vs Emiliano Valdez et al.

Ponente: Johnson

Facts:

Sibal alleged that Mamawal, deputy sheriff of Tarlac attached and sold to Valdez the sugar cane planted by Sibal on several parcels of land. Valdez refused to returned the cane and money to Sibal. As 2nd cause of action, Sibal alleged that Valdez was attempting to harvest the palay planted in four of the seven parcels of land mentioned. The court after hearing both parties, issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for in the complaint.

The defendant Emiliano J. Valdez, in his amended answer, denied generally and specifically each and every

allegation of the complaint and step up the following defenses:

(a) That the sugar cane in question had the nature of personal property and was not, therefore, subject to redemption;

(b) That he was the owner of parcels 1, 2 and 7 described in the first cause of action of the complaint;

(c) That he was the owner of the palay in parcels 1, 2 and 7; and

(d) That he never attempted to harvest the palay in parcels 4 and 5. After hearing the evidence, Judge Lukban rendered in favor of the defendants.

Issue:

(1) Whether the sugar cane is personal or real property?

Held:

It is contended that sugar cane comes under the classification of real property as "ungathered products" in paragraph 2 of article 334 of the Civil Code. Said paragraph 2 of article 334 enumerates as real property the following: Trees, plants, and ungathered products, while they are annexed to the land or form an integral part of any immovable property." That article, however, has received in recent years an interpretation by the Tribunal Supremo de España, which holds that, under certain conditions, growing crops may be considered as personal property.

In some cases "standing crops" may be considered and dealt with as personal property. In the case of Lumber Co. vs. Sheriff and Tax Collector (106 La., 418) the Supreme Court said: "True, by article 465 of the Civil Code it is provided that 'standing crops and the fruits of trees not gathered and trees before they are cut down . . . are considered as part of the land to which they are attached, but the immovability provided for is only one in abstracto and without reference to rights on or to the crop acquired by others than the owners of the property to which the crop is attached. . . . The existence of a right on the growing crop is a mobilization by anticipation, a gathering as it were in advance, rendering the crop movable quoad the right acquired therein. Our jurisprudence recognizes the possible mobilization of the growing crop."

For the purpose of attachment and execution, and for the purposes of the Chattel Mortgage Law, "ungathered products" have the nature of personal property. SC lowered the award for damages to the defendant to 8,900.80 by acknowledging the fact that some of the sugar canes were owned by the petitioner and by reducing the calculated expected yield or profit that defendant would have made if petitioner did not judicially prevent him from planting and harvesting his lands.