Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    (CD) Sibal vs. Valdez - G.R. No. L-26278 - August 4, 1927 - Internet

    Uploaded by

    Amiel Gian Mario Zapanta
    Leon Sibal sued Emiliano Valdez alleging that Valdez refused to return sugar cane and money that was attached and sold by a deputy sheriff. Valdez denied the allegations and claimed he owned the land and crops. The main issue was whether the sugar cane was considered personal or real property. The court held that while sugar cane is normally considered real property under civil code, it can be considered personal property in some cases, such as for attachment, execution, or chattel mortgages. The court acknowledged Sibal owned some cane and reduced damages awarded to Valdez.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    (CD) Sibal vs. Valdez - G.R. No. L-26278 - August 4, 1927 - Internet

    Uploaded by

    Amiel Gian Mario Zapanta
    34 views2 pages
    Leon Sibal sued Emiliano Valdez alleging that Valdez refused to return sugar cane and money that was attached and sold by a deputy sheriff. Valdez denied the allegations and claimed he owned the land and crops. The main issue was whether the sugar cane was considered personal or real property. The court held that while sugar cane is normally considered real property under civil code, it can be considered personal property in some cases, such as for attachment, execution, or chattel mortgages. The court acknowledged Sibal owned some cane and reduced damages awarded to Valdez.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    [CD] Sibal vs. Valdez - G.R. No. L-26278 - August 4, 1927 - Internet

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Leon Sibal sued Emiliano Valdez alleging that Valdez refused to return sugar cane and money that was attached and sold by a deputy sheriff. Valdez denied the allegations and claimed he owned the land and crops. The main issue was whether the sugar cane was considered personal or real property. The court held that while sugar cane is normally considered real property under civil code, it can be considered personal property in some cases, such as for attachment, execution, or chattel mortgages. The court acknowledged Sibal owned some cane and reduced damages awarded to Valdez.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    34 views2 pages

    (CD) Sibal vs. Valdez - G.R. No. L-26278 - August 4, 1927 - Internet

    Uploaded by

    Amiel Gian Mario Zapanta
    Leon Sibal sued Emiliano Valdez alleging that Valdez refused to return sugar cane and money that was attached and sold by a deputy sheriff. Valdez denied the allegations and claimed he owned the land and crops. The main issue was whether the sugar cane was considered personal or real property. The court held that while sugar cane is normally considered real property under civil code, it can be considered personal property in some cases, such as for attachment, execution, or chattel mortgages. The court acknowledged Sibal owned some cane and reduced damages awarded to Valdez.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    LEON SIBAL , plaintiff-appellant, vs. EMILIANO J. VALDEZ ET AL., defendants.

    EMILIANO J. VALDEZ, appellee.

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

    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

    Whether or not 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.

    You might also like