Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 31163. November 6, 1929. ]

URBANO SANTOS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE C. BERNABE, ET AL., Defendants. PABLO TIONGSON and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF BULACAN, Appellants.

Arcadio Ejercito and Guevara, Francisco & Recto, for Appellants.

Eusebio Orense and Nicolas Belmonte, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. MANUAL DELIVERY OF PERSONAL PROPERTY; LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF PROVISIONS OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 THEREOF. — Plaintiff S and defendant T deposited some palay with defendant B. T sues B to recover his portion, and succeeds in obtaining a preliminary attachment and subsequent sale of B’s property, despite S’s third- party claim. The sacks of palay bore no marks or signs to distinguish T’s from S’s. S now contends that T cannot claim the palay attached and sold because in soliciting the attachment, he impliedly admitted that the palay belonged to B. But, giving section 262 of the Code of Civil Procedure a liberal construction, in pursuance of section 2 thereof, the application for a preliminary attachment of B’s property filed by T, was a claim for the delivery of personal property deposited by him with the former.

2. MIXTURE OF TWO SIMILAR THINGS; PROPORTIONAL RIGHT OF EACH OWNER. — There being no means, in the instant case, to separate out of the palay attached and sold, the portion corresponding to plaintiff S and that corresponding to defendant T, the rule prescribed in article 381 of the Civil Code for cases of this nature must be applied. Said rule is as follows: "If, by the will of their owners, two things of identical or dissimilar nature are mixed, or if the mixture occurs accidentally, if in the latter case the things cannot be separated without injury, each owner shall acquire a right in the mixture proportionate to the part belonging to him, according to the value of the things mixed or commingled."


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


This appeal was taken by the defendants Pablo Tiongson and the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of said province, wherein said defendant Pablo Tiongson was ordered to pay the plaintiff Urbano Santos the value of 778 cavans and 38 kilos of palay, at the rate of P3 per cavan, without special pronouncement as to costs.

In support of their appeal, the appellants assign the following alleged errors committed by the lower court in its judgment, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The court erred in holding that it has been proved that in the cavans of palay attached by the herein defendant Pablo Tiongson from the defendant Jose C. Bernabe were included those claimed by the plaintiff in this cause.

"2. The court erred in ordering the defendant Pablo Tiongson to pay the plaintiff the value of 778 cavans and 38 kilos of palay, the refund of which is claimed by said plaintiff.

"3. The court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial."cralaw virtua1aw library

The following facts were conclusively proved at the trial:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On March 20, 1928, there were deposited in Jose C. Bernabe’s warehouse by the plaintiff Urbano Santos 778 cavans and 38 kilos of palay and by Pablo Tiongson 1,026 cavans and 9 kilos of the same grain.

On said date, March 20, 1928, Pablo Tiongson filed with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan a complaint against Jose C. Bernabe, to recover from the latter the 1,026 cavans and 9 kilos of palay deposited in the defendant’s warehouse. At the same time, the application of Pablo Tiongson for a writ of attachment was granted, and the attachable property of Jose C. Bernabe, include 924 cavans and 31
Top of Page