Scribd
Upload
25 views

Us V Reyes

1) Vicente Sulit occupied land as a tenant and entered into an agreement with Julian Reyes to jointly plant and harvest a rice crop, with profits to be split equally after expenses. 2) When the crop was harvested, Reyes refused to give Sulit his share of the rice, claiming it belonged to the town. 3) The court found Reyes unlawfully disposed of Sulit's share of the crop in violation of their contract but did not commit theft since he lawfully possessed the rice. Reyes was acquitted with costs.

Uploaded by

vmanalo16
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
25 views

Us V Reyes

1) Vicente Sulit occupied land as a tenant and entered into an agreement with Julian Reyes to jointly plant and harvest a rice crop, with profits to be split equally after expenses. 2) When the crop was harvested, Reyes refused to give Sulit his share of the rice, claiming it belonged to the town. 3) The court found Reyes unlawfully disposed of Sulit's share of the crop in violation of their contract but did not commit theft since he lawfully possessed the rice. Reyes was acquitted with costs.

Uploaded by

vmanalo16
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 2867 September 11, 1906
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee,
vs.
JULIAN REYES, defendant-appellant.
W.A. Kincaid, for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta, for appellee.
ARELLANO, J.:
Assuming that the findings of fact contained in the decision of the court below are correct, it appears (1)
that one Vicente Sulit occupied as a tenant several parcels of land within the hacienda of Justo Guido for
the use of which he gave to the owner 30 cavanes of palay for every 3 cavanes of seed received from
the latter; (2) that the said Vicente Sulit, who was a man 80 years of age, entered into an agreement
with Julian de los Reyes whereby the former was to contribute 3½ cavanes of seed and sow the same,
and in addition thereto, two carabaos, two harrows, two carts, and 24 pesos in cash, and the latter was
to transplant the seed and take care of and harvest the crop, the profits to be divided between them,
share and share alike, after deducting the 30 cavanes due to the owner of the land, Reyes to reimburse
his partner one-half of the expenses defrayed in advance by Sulit; and (3) that when the crop was ready
to be harvested, Reyes being sick, Sulit did the work, stacked the rice, and when the time came for
trashing the rice, Reyes did the trashing.
But when Sulit went upon the land to take his share of the rice, he found Reyes selling palay to various
persons, and he refused to give him (Sulit) any part thereof, saying that he was not this partner because
the rice belonged to the town.
The court below sentenced the accused to six months' imprisonment (arresto mayor), to return the
stolen palay, 75 cavanes in all, or in default thereof to pay to the said Sulit 150 pesos, otherwise to
suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of one day for every 12½ pesetas, such
subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed one-third of the principal penalty, with the costs of the
proceedings.
The Attorney-General is of the opinion that the crime committed was not that of theft for the reason
that, as he says, there was no apoderamiento of the property of another, and suggests that the crime
committed was rather that of estafa, thus apparently accepting the view of the counsel for the
defendant, as expressed on page 5 of the latter's brief.
As a matter of fact the defendant could have harvested and trashed the crop in question. This he could
have done by reason of his possession, both de facto, and de jure. He was in possession of the palay of
which he freely disposed without taking or abstracting the same from anyone, and he had a right to
lawfully disposed of an aliquot part of the crop. If he had disposed of all of the crop his action would
have been unlawful. His unlawful disposition of the share belonging to his partner or joint owner (such
contract being governed by the provisions relative to the contract of partnership, by the stipulation of
the parties, and by the custom of the country as provided in article 1579 of the Civil Code) was
undoubtedly a violation of their contract and a trespass upon the rights of another but not an act
constituting the crime of theft. If the defendant was lawfully in possession of the rice he certainly did
not, when he disposed of it, take it or abstract it from another. Such taking and abstracting is what
contitutes the crime of theft.
We accordingly reverse the judgment appealed from and acquit the defenadnt with the costs of both
instance de oficio, without prejudice to the institution of any other action that may be proper, as to
which make no decision.
After the expiration of ten days from the date of final judgment the case will be remanded to the court
below for prper prcedure. So ordered.
Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.

You might also like