Sibal vs. Valdez

Growing crops raised by yearly labor and cultivation are personal property for purposes of attachment and execution, and are not subject to redemption as real property.

The dispute arose from competing claims over sugar cane and palay growing on lands in Tarlac that were subject to multiple executions and attachments involving judgment creditor Macondray & Co. and subsequent purchaser Emiliano Valdez.

• Filed in CFI of Tarlac on December 14, 1924
• CFI issued writ of preliminary injunction on December 27, 1924
• CFI rendered judgment on April 28, 1926, holding sugar cane was personal property and not subject to redemption; absolved defendants; ordered plaintiff and sureties to pay damages of P9,439.08
• Elevated to SC on appeal by plaintiff

• Sibal owned lands in Tarlac subject to execution by Macondray & Co. (CFI Manila Case No. 20203)
• May 11, 1923: Sheriff attached 8 parcels of Sibal's land; sold July 30, 1923 to Macondray for P4,273.93
• Sept 24, 1923: Sibal paid P2,000 to Macondray for redemption of said parcels (reducing balance to P2,579.97)
• April 29, 1924: Sheriff attached Sibal's personal property (including sugar cane on 7 parcels) under execution in favor of Valdez (CFI Pampanga Case No. 1301)
• May 9-10, 1924: Sheriff sold personal property including sugar cane to Valdez for P600
• April 29, 1924: Sheriff also attached Sibal's real property (11 parcels) under same execution
• June 25, 1924: Sheriff sold 8 parcels of real property to Valdez for P12,200
• June 25, 1924: Macondray sold its rights to the 8 parcels to Valdez for P2,579.97 (the unpaid redemption balance), effectively transferring full ownership to Valdez
• Sibal filed action to redeem sugar cane as "ungathered products" (real property) and to recover palay; sought injunction against Valdez
• CFI ruled against Sibal; Sibal appealed

• Sugar cane is real property as "ungathered products" under Article 334(2) of the Civil Code, and therefore subject to redemption within one year
• Valdez was not the owner of parcels 1 and 2 of the complaint
• Damages awarded for sugar-cane shoots and palay were excessive or improperly computed

• Sugar cane is personal property, not subject to redemption as real property
• Valdez acquired ownership of parcels 1, 2, and 7 through purchase from Macondray and the sheriff's sale
• Valdez owned the palay in said parcels
• Valdez suffered damages (P8,375.20 for ungathered crops and P3,458.56 additional) due to the preliminary injunction preventing harvest

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the sugar cane is real or personal property for purposes of attachment and redemption
  • Whether Valdez is the owner of parcels 1 and 2 described in the complaint
  • Whether Valdez is the owner of parcel 7 and the Pacalcal parcel
  • Whether the damages awarded by the CFI were correctly computed

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • Sugar cane is personal property. Article 334(2) of the Civil Code has been modified by Section 450 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Act No. 1508 (Chattel Mortgage Law) to treat ungathered products as personal property for purposes of attachment and execution. The sugar cane was properly sold as personal property and is not subject to redemption.
  • Valdez owns parcels 1 and 2. These parcels correspond to those acquired by Valdez from Macondray on June 25, 1924, and from the sheriff's sale on the same date.
  • Valdez owns parcel 7 and the Pacalcal parcel. These correspond to parcels acquired by Valdez from Macondray and the sheriff.
• Damages modified. The award is reduced from P9,439.08 to P8,900.80:
  • P6,757.40 for sugar cane (affirmed)
  • P1,220.40 for sugar-cane shoots (reduced from P1,435.68; correct amount is 1,017,000 shoots at P1.20/thousand)
  • P323 for palay harvested by plaintiff (reduced from P646; plaintiff entitled to half of 190 cavans as planter without bad faith, thus liable only for 95 cavans at P3.40/cavan)
  • P600 for palay defendant could have raised (affirmed)

• Mobilization by Anticipation — The existence of a right on a growing crop acquired by someone other than the landowner renders the crop movable "quoad the right acquired therein." The immovability of growing crops is temporary; the existence of a separate right mobilizes the crop by anticipation, making it personal property for purposes of that right.
• Potential Existence — A valid sale may be made of things not yet actually in existence but reasonably certain to come into existence as the natural increment of something already existing (e.g., future crops, wine from vineyard, wool from sheep), provided they are specific and identified.
• Statutory Modification of Article 334(2) — While Article 334(2) of the Civil Code classifies ungathered products as real property, this has been modified by:
  • Section 450, Code of Civil Procedure: Allows execution on "goods, chattels, and other property," which includes growing crops as personal property.
  • Act No. 1508 (Chattel Mortgage Law), Sections 2 and 7: Expressly recognizes growing crops as personal property subject to chattel mortgage, including provisions for the mortgagor to tend and care for the crop.

• "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."
• "We may, therefore, conclude that paragraph 2 of article 334 of the Civil Code has been modified by section 450 of the Code of Civil Procedure and by Act No. 1508, in the sense that, for the purposes of attachment and execution, and for the purposes of the Chattel Mortgage Law, 'ungathered products' have the nature of personal property."
• "A crop raised on leased premises in no sense forms part of the immovable. It belongs to the lessee, and may be sold by him, whether it be gathered or not..." (citing Louisiana jurisprudence)

• Tribunal Supremo de España, Decision of March 18, 1904 — Followed for the principle that pending fruits may be treated as personal property and that a lessee is entitled to gather products corresponding to the agricultural year.
• Lumber Co. v. Sheriff and Tax Collector, 106 La. 418 — Cited for the doctrine that standing crops may be considered personal property when rights are acquired by others (mobilization by anticipation).
• Citizens' Bank v. Wiltz, 31 La. Ann. 244 — Cited for the principle that the immovability of growing crops is temporary and that rights acquired thereon render the crop movable.
• Porche v. Bodin, 28 La. Ann. 761 — Distinguished crops raised on leased premises (belonging to lessee) from crops belonging to the landowner.
• Raventas v. Green, 57 Cal. 254 — California precedent holding growing crops are personal property subject to execution.

• Article 334(2), Civil Code — Defines ungathered products annexed to land as real property; interpreted by the SC as modified by subsequent legislation.
• Section 450, Code of Civil Procedure — Provides that goods, chattels, and other property are liable to execution; basis for treating growing crops as personal property for execution purposes.
• Act No. 1508 (Chattel Mortgage Law), Sections 2 and 7 — Sections 2 (personal property subject to mortgage) and 7 (special provisions for mortgaging growing crops) operate as legislative recognition that growing crops are personal property.

N/A (Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concurred without separate opinions)