LEON SIBAL

vs
EMILIANO VALDEZ, ET.AL
GR No. 26278, Aug. 4, 1927

Facts:
Petitioner Leon Sibal attached his crops (growing on his land) as security
for his loan from Respondent Valdez. Sibal offered to redeem the sugarcane
later but Valdez refused. Valdez then took possession of several of his crops.
Filing with CFI, Sibal prayed to restrain Valdez because he argues that
the palay he attached in favor of Valdez is part of his real property, thus
cannot be taken away. In Dec. 1924, CFI favored Leon Sibal but Valdez
opposed claiming that “sugarcane is personal property and not subject to
redemption.” His prayer: “Declare me as the owner of the crops and Sibal to
pay me for my losses.”In 1926, RTC Judge Lukban overturned CFI and
favored Valdez: “Gathered crop is personal property.” RTC absolved Valdez
and condemned Sibal to pay.

Issue:

Whether or not the crop in this case real or personal property?

Ruling:
The crops in this case are personal property. Generally, crops are real
property as “ungathered products” under Article 415 of NCC. But under
certain conditions, growing crops may be considered personal property.

What are those conditions? (1) Valid Sale, (2) Ejectment of Lessee, (3)
Exclusion from Land Mortgage – Manresa and Spanish authorities.

“Standing crops may be considered personal property when there are rights
on the growing crop… or mobilization by anticipation” – Supreme Court of
Louisiana.
Can a valid sale be made of crops still growing? Yes, if it is reasonably certain
to come into existence as the natural increase. (Mr. Mechem Author on Sales)

Crops are generally real property. But if there is a valid “mobilization” on the
part of the owner in favor of such crops, they become personal property.