G.R. No. L-28070. October 5, 1977.
MARDONIO ALMEDA and MARIA TORRECAMPO, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. JUAN R. DALURO and MARCELINO G. DALURO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On May 4, 1956, defendants sold a parcel of land to plaintiffs under a pacto de retro sale. Defendants redeemed the property on August 2, 1957. On the same redemption date, the parties executed an agreement concerning the standing palay crop planted in June 1957. The contract stipulated that plaintiffs and defendants would share equally in the “net harvest” of this palay, with harvest expected “sometime in September, 1957.” An initial harvest of 127.95 cavans (the owner’s share) was gathered by September 30, 1957, and was divided equally. A subsequent harvest of 105 cavans (also the owner’s share) was thereafter gathered, which defendants appropriated entirely for themselves.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint for specific performance, demanding delivery of one-half of this second harvest. Defendants contended their obligation under the agreement was limited only to the harvest gathered within September 1957. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering defendants to deliver one-half of the 105 cavans or its value. Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved purely legal questions.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiffs’ right to a one-half share of the harvest under the August 2, 1957 agreement extends to palay gathered after the month of September 1957.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding plaintiffs entitled to a one-half share of the harvest gathered after September 1957. The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that Article 1617 of the Civil Code governed the disposition of fruits. This legal provision, which prescribes rules for sharing fruits upon redemption when the parties have made no prior arrangement, is inapplicable because the parties here expressly stipulated their own sharing agreement on August 2, 1957. This private agreement, being not contrary to law, morals, or public policy, is binding.
The Court interpreted the contract’s language. The phrase “sometime in September, 1957” merely indicated the parties’ expectation of when the crop planted in June would be harvested; it was not a limiting clause confining the plaintiffs’ right to harvests gathered exclusively within that calendar month. The true basis of the plaintiffs’ right was their ownership of the land at the time the palay was planted in June 1957, prior to the August redemption. Therefore, their right to share in the fruits of that planting attached to the entire harvest from that crop cycle, irrespective of whether gathering concluded in September or extended beyond it. The agreement’s reference to “the harvest” of the palay planted in June necessarily encompassed the full yield from that planting.