Pichel v Alonzo| G.R. No. L-36902. January 30, 1982 |
The lower court erred in ruling that the
Guerrero, J. | | by Jasper
FACTS:
● Prudencio Alonzo was granted a parcel of Coconut
land in Basilan under R.A. 477 which granted bona
fide occupants, veterans, guerillas, and other
qualified persons the opportunity to acquire
government lands by purchase. Under the law, the
land granted as well as permanent improvements
thereon could not be alienated or encumbered
except in favor of the government for a period of 10
years after the grant. The grant was initially
cancelled in 1965 after it appeared that Alonzo had
alienated the land, but his rights were subsequently
restored in 1972.
● Alonzo and Luis Pichel executed a "Deed of Sale"
dated August 14, 1968, whereby Alonzo undertook
to convey all the coconut fruits of his coconut land
for P4,200.00 for the period of September 15, 1968
up to January 1, 1976. Under the terms of the
agreement, Pichel as the Vendee, would be charged
with the harvesting and gathering of the fruits.
● Alonzo later sought to annul the sale claiming that
it was an encumberance prohibited by R.A. 477.
● The lower court ruled in favor of Alonzo and
declared the Deed of Sale null and void on the
grounds that it gave Pichel complete control and
enjoyment over the improvements on the land (the
coconuts) and that it was not a contract of sale but
actually a contract of lease - a prohibited
encumberance under R.A 477
ISSUES/RATIO:
1. WHETHER COCONUTS YET TO EXIST CAN BE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF A SALE (YES)
a. Under Art. 1461, things having a potential
existence may be the object of the
contract of sale. Prior to the enactment of
the New Civil Code, the Court held as much
in Sibal v. Valdez, where it ruled that
pending crops could be the subject matter
of a sale. Citing the commentator Mechem
on Sales, the Court in Sibal ruled that "a
valid sale may be made of a thing which
though not in existence is reasonably
certain to come into existence as the
natural increment or the usual incident of
something already in existence…"
b. The lower court relied on the definition of
a lease in Art. 1643, whereby one party
binds himself to give another the
enjoyment or use of a thing for a price
certain and for a period which may be
definite or indefinite. It reasoned that
since Pichel as the vendee was granted the
right to harvest and gather coconuts on
Alonzo's land without interference from
the latter, the terms actually reflected an
agreement which granted Pichel
enjoyment of the land for a price over a
definite period.
c.
contract was that of a lease. The key
difference between a contract of sale and
that of lease is that in a contract of sale the
delivery of the thing transfers ownership
to the vendee, while in a lease no such
transfer of ownership occurs. The
agreement granted Pichel ownership and
dominion over coconuts for a price, this
dominion and ownership is separate from
ownership and dominion over the land.
d. The rights over the coconuts conveyed to
Pichel are separate from rights to enjoy
and possess the land. The first pertains to
an accessory, while the second pertains to
land. A transfer of an accessory is not a
transfer of the principal.
2. WHETHER THE CONTRACT WAS A PROHIBITED
ENCUMBERANCE (NO)
a. The grantee of land under R.A. 477 is not
prohibited from alienating or disposing of
the natural fruits of the land granted to
him. The law prohibits the encumberance
of the land itself or of permanent
improvements thereon. While the coconut
trees planted on the land are permanent
improvements, the produce of the trees
which are natural or industrial fruits are
meant to be severed from the trees,
gathered and disposed of by the owner.
b. The aim of R.A. 477, to enable grantees to
lead productive lives and to make the land
economically viable is not defeated, but in
fact enhanced by the selling of the fruits of
the land.
3. Whether Alonzo, as the vendor, has the right to
treat the agreement as an implied lease (NO)
a. Alonzo claims that it is his construction of
the contract which should prevail, this
cannot be allowed given that he had
already received consideration for the sale
of the coconuts and is thus barred from
impugning the validity of the contract
RULING: The Court reversed the findings of the lower court
and held that the agreement was a contract of sale, noting
that the subject matter of the contract was not the
enjoyment of the land but the coconuts which were the
fruits of improvements of the land