G.R. No. 26278 , August 4, 1927
LEON SIBAL, plaintiff-appellant, vs. EMILIANO J. VALDEZ ET AL., defendants. EMILIANO J. VALDEZ, appellee.

FACTS

Leon Sibal filed an action against Emiliano J. Valdez and Deputy Sheriff Vitaliano Mamawal. Sibal sought to redeem sugar cane attached and sold to Valdez via execution, and to recover palay allegedly harvested by Valdez from certain parcels of land. Sibal also obtained a preliminary injunction to prevent Valdez from harvesting the crops.

The properties involved had a complex history of attachments and sales due to separate judgments against Sibal. Initially, eight parcels of Sibal’s land were attached and sold at auction to Macondray & Co. (July 30, 1923). Sibal made a partial redemption payment. Later, Valdez obtained a judgment against Sibal. Under this judgment, the sheriff attached Sibal’s personal property, including the standing sugar cane, and sold it to Valdez (May 1924). Subsequently, Macondray & Co. sold all the land it had acquired to Valdez (June 25, 1924).

Valdez argued the sugar cane was personal property and not subject to legal redemption, and claimed ownership of some parcels and the palay planted thereon. The trial court ruled in favor of Valdez, holding the sugar cane was personal property and not redeemable, and awarded Valdez damages for losses caused by the injunction. Sibal appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the sugar cane, as a growing crop attached and sold separately from the land, is considered personal property and therefore not subject to the right of legal redemption under the rules of execution.
2. Whether the trial court correctly determined ownership of the parcels and crops, and correctly computed the damages awarded to Valdez due to the injunction.

RULING

1. On the Nature of the Sugar Cane: The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s ruling. The sugar cane, having been levied upon and sold as personal property under a writ of execution directed at Sibal’s personal assets, was correctly classified as personal property for the purposes of that sale. Consequently, the statutory right of redemption applicable to real property sold on execution did not apply to it. Sibal’s offer to redeem was properly refused.

2. On Damages and Modifications: The Supreme Court MODIFIED the damages awarded. It recalculated Valdez’s losses due to the injunction based on the evidence:
* Sugar Cane: Upheld the award of P6,757.40 for Valdez’s share of the unharvested sugar cane.
* Sugar Cane Shoots: Reduced the award from P1,435.68 to P1,220.40 based on a corrected quantity.
* Palay Harvested by Sibal: Reduced the award from P646 to P323, recognizing that Sibal, as a tenant, was entitled to half of the 190 cavans harvested from parcels where Valdez was the landowner.
* Lost Palay Cultivation: Upheld the award of P600 for the palay Valdez could not plant due to the injunction.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment was modified. Plaintiff Leon Sibal and his sureties (Cenon de la Cruz, Juan Sangalang, and Marcos Sibal) were ordered to pay defendant Emiliano J. Valdez, jointly and severally, the reduced sum of P8,900.80. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed. Costs against the appellant.