Sibal v.

Valdez

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

Doctrine: For the purpose of attachment and execution, and for the purposes of the Chattel Mortgage
Law, "ungathered products" have the nature of personal property.

Facts: In 1924, plaintiff commences an action alleging that the defendant Vitaliano Mamawal, deputy
sheriff of the Province of Tarlac attached and sold to the defendant Emiliano J. Valdez the sugar cane
planted by the plaintiff on seven parcels of land by virtue of a writ of execution by CFI Pampanga, and
offered a redemption period of one year from the date of the attachment and sale and that Valdez
refused to accept the money and to return the sugar cane to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also alleged that
the defendant Emiliano J. Valdez was attempting to harvest the palay planted in four of the seven
parcels and that he had harvested and taken possession of the palay in one of said seven parcels and in
another parcel, amounting to 300 cavans; and that all of said palay belonged to the plaintiff.

In December 1924, the court, after hearing both parties and upon approval of the bond for P6,000 filed
by the plaintiff, issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for in the complaint. The defendant in
his answer 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 (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.

CFI rendered a judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant. the sugar cane in question
was personal property and, as such, was not subject to redemption; (2) Absolving the defendants from
all liability under the complaint. Condemning the plaintiff and his sureties Cenon de la Cruz, Juan
Sangalang and Marcos Sibal to jointly and severally pay to the defendant Emiliano J. Valdez the sum of
P9,439.08.

The plaintiff appealed and contended that the lower court erred: (1) In holding that the sugar cane in
question was personal property and, therefore, not subject to redemption; (2) In holding that parcels 1
and 2 of the complaint belonged to Valdez, as well as parcels 7 and 8, and that the palay therein was
planted by Valdez;

Issue: Whether the sugar cane in question is personal or real property.

Ruling: Yes, for the purposes of attachment and execution, and for the purposes of the Chattel
Mortgage Law, ungathered products have the nature of personal property. It is clear from the foregoing
provisions that Act No. 1508 was enacted on the assumption that "growing crops" are personal
property. Under the facts of the record, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 334 of
the Civil Code, that growing sugar cane is considered personal property and not real property and is
subject to attachment and sale. Act No. 1508, the Chattel Mortgage Law, provides that all personal
property shall be subject to mortgage. At common law all annual crops which are raised by yearly
manurance and labor and essentially owe their existence to cultivation may be levied on as personal
property. 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 purpose of attachment and execution and
for the purposes of the Chattel Mortgage Law, "ungathered products" have the nature of personal
property.