Leon Sibal, plaintiff-appellant v. Emiliano J. Valdez, Et. Al.

, defendants-appellee
GR No. 26278, August 4, 1927
Johnson, J.

BAI MALYANAH A. SALMAN

Facts:

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant Vitaliano Mamawal, deputy sheriff of the
Province of Tarlac, by virtue of a writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga, attached and sold to the defendant Emiliano J. Valdez the sugar cane planted
by the plaintiff and his tenants on seven parcels of land described in the complaint. That
within one year from the date of the attachment and sale, the plaintiff offered to redeem
said sugar cane and tendered to the defendant Valdez the amount sufficient to cover the
price paid by the latter, the interest thereon and any assessments or taxes which he may
have paid thereon after the purchase, and the interest corresponding thereto and that
Valdez refused to accept the money and to return the sugar cane to the plaintiff. Valdez’s,
contention is that the sugar cane in question had the nature of personal property and was
not, therefore, subject to redemption.

Issue:

Whether or not the sugar cane is classified personal property?

Ruling:

Yes, the sugar cane is a personal property.

It is true under the New Civil Code (NCC), Article 415, Par 2., that trees, plants
and growing crops, while they are attached to the land or form an integral part of an
immovable. But for chattel mortgage purposes, Article 416, Par. 2 of the NCC provides
that real property which by any special provision of law is considered as personalty
applies. Which is applicable in this case. Because as decided in the case of Citizen's
Bank vs. Wiltz (31 La. Ann., 244), the Louisiana Supreme Court mentioned that the
immovability of a growing crop is in the order of things temporary, for the crop passes
from the state of a growing to that of a gathered one, from an immovable to a movable.
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 thereon.
Furthermore, in the case of In the case of Lumber Co. vs. Sheriff and Tax Collector (106
La., 418) the Louisiana Supreme Court mentioned that 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.