Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2966 December 29, 1906
NICOLAS CONCEPCION TAN TACO, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
VICENTE GAY, defendant-appellee.
Coudert Brothers for appellant.
Guanko & Avanceña for appellee.
JOHNSON, J.:
This was an action by the plaintiff to recover of the defendant damages for the unlawful appropriation of certain crops cultivated by the plaintiff during the year 1904.
At the conclusion of the trial the lower court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover and dismissed the cause of action with costs of the plaintiff.
An examination of the evidence shows that the defendant for some years had charged of the hacienda "Fortuna," in the pueblo of San Carlos in the Province of Occidental Negros. In the year 1900 the plaintiff a tenant upon the said hacienda under a verbal contract with the defendant, by which the former was to put a quantity of land in cultivation and was to plant thereon sugar cane, and was to receive one-half of the products. No time was expressly stated for the duration of this contract; however, it was understood that the plaintiff might continue as such tenant upon such hacienda as long as he lived, if he so desired.
The plaintiff continued upon said hacienda, cultivating a portion of the same until the month of May, 1904, when, by reason of being wounded by an attack of bandits or highwaymen, he was obliged to leave said hacienda and go to the city of Iloilo. At the time the plaintiff left the said hacienda there was growing thereon a crop of cane which he had planted and cultivated; the extent and value of said cane is not clearly estimated by the proof adduced in said cause.
During the time between the 1900 and May, 1904, the plaintiff had raised corn and sugar cane and sold his share of the same to the defendant. During the same period the plaintiff had received advancements in cash as well as in goods and merchandise from the defendant, amounting to several hundred dollars above the value of the share of the crops which the plaintiff had sold to the defendant. At the time the plaintiff left the hacienda there was a liquidation of the accounts between him and due from the plaintiff to the defendant the sum of 1,021.29 pesos.
The defendant claims and undertook to prove that this indebtedness of the plaintiff to him was canceled by virtue of the plaintiff turning over to the defendant his share of the then growing crop on the said hacienda, which had been planted and cultivated by the plaintiff. Later in the year 1904 the defendant took possession of said crops and harvested the same and appropriated the results to his own use.
The plaintiff claims and undertakes to prove that when he left the said hacienda in the month of May it was agreed between him and the defendant that his son-in-law, one Gestorio Caballero, was to take charge of said crops and harvest the same for the benefit of the said plaintiff.
At the time the plaintiff left the hacienda in the month of May a new account was opened between the defendant of the said Caballero, and the balance due from the plaintiff to the defendant was charged to the said Caballero. Just what the contract was between the plaintiff and the said Caballero does not distinctly appear by the evidence.
From the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause in the lower court it seems clear that whatever right in the said crops of the year 1904 which the plaintiff had was turned over to the said Caballero at the time the former left the said hacienda, be reason of the agreement between them, and by reason of the cancellation of the account which the defendant had against the plaintiff at that time. It would seem from the record that if the defendant had violated the rights of any person with reference to the crops of the year 1904, he had violated the rights which the said Caballero had in said crops.
The lower court found that by the arrangement which was made between the plaintiff and the said Caballero, the debt which the plaintiff owed to the defendant on the balance of their accounts was extinguished by its being charged to Caballero, the latter assuming it, and that the plaintiff thereby lost any right which he had in said crops.
The lower court stated in its judgment that the judgment in no way determined the right of Caballero to demand and recover compensation of the defendant for the value of the crop as it stood at the time the said defendant took possession of the same.
The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed with costs. After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith and ten days thereafter the cause be remanded to the lower court for proper action. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
