oflodoR-Rodolfo

Guido v. Borja

G.R. No. L-4013, December 28, 1951

Facts:

This action was instituted by the heirs and successors of Francisco Guido and Dominga Santa Ana, to recover the ownership and possession of the hacienda of Angono, against the defendant, who, being tenants of the said hacienda until the year 1903, denied the ownership of the plaintiffs and themselves pretended to be the owners of the hacienda. The Court of First Instance of the Province of Rizal rendered final judgment, the findings of which, impugned upon appeal by the defendants, are the following:

1. That the ownership and possession of the hacienda of Angono, as it appears described in the decision of said court, in accordance with the amended complaint, pertains to Justo Guido, Juliana Guido, Buenaventura Guido and other participants with them in said hacienda; by virtue thereof the court below ordered the defendants to restore said possession to the plaintiffs.

2. That the fruits or crops and plantings of the defendants on the said hacienda of Angono do not belong to the plaintiffs, and in lieu thereof the court below sentences each one of the defendants respectively to pay the plaintiffs and their participants such sums in money and paddy as they may owe them, as itemized in the statements attached to the complaint under numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. A list of the names of the defendants with the statement of the respective amounts to the payment of which they were sentenced, follows.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner has the right to the fruit.

Held:

The natural effect of an action for recovery is the restoration of the thing together with the fruits, accessories, and payment of damages. In the second finding of the judgment appealed from, the plaintiffs were not granted the fruits or crops and plantings of the defendants on the hacienda of Angono, but in exchange, each of them was sentenced to pay the amounts in cash and in palay (paddy) which they appeared to be owing, as specified in the statements attached to the complaint as a part thereof.

The fruits that the defendants are obliged to restore, together with the thing not belonging to but retained by them, are not only the naturals fruits, which have justly been denied by the judgment appealed from, but also the civil fruits which consist of the rent for the buildings and the price of the lease of the lands. (Civil Code, 335.)

Beginning with fact that the crops or products of the detained lands are fruits obtained by those who, as tenants, worked the lands, it was not proper to deprive them of the same; but from the moment that they desired to usurp the ownership of the hacienda, and commenced to act in the bad faith with which they present retain possession, instead of owing those fruits they owe the civil, not, however, by virtue of a contract which they now disown, but by virtue of the right of accession which accompanies the right of recovery. And if they were sued as one sole party for the restitution of the hacienda, they must be sued as such for the restitution of its civil fruits, in their character of accessories not as matter of compliance with a lease contract; for all of which reasons the finding in the judgment is fully in accordance with the law.

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Related posts:

1. Case Digest | Del Campo v. Abesia
2. Case Digest | Tacas v. Tobon
3. Case Digest | Lavarro v. Labitoria
4. Case Digest | Santos v. Mojica
5. Property Case Digest | The Heirs of Jumero vs. Jacinto Lizares, et al
6. Property Case Digest | Juana Pichay v. Eulalo Querol
7. Property Case Digest | Vicente Reyes v. Jose Grey
8. Case Digest | De Guzman v. De la Fuente
9. Property Case Digest | Jabonete v. Monteverde
10. Case Digest | Piansay v. David