MARDONIO ALMEDA AND MARIA TORRECAMPO, PLAINTIFFS, VS. JUAN R. DALURO AND MARCELINO G. DALURO, DEFENDANTS.

This is a case certified by the Court of Appeals to this Court,
per its Resolution of September 9, 1967,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act, as amended, on
the ground that the issues raised in the appeal are
purely questions of law.^[1]

In retrospect, it appears that on May 4, 1956, defendants sold to plaintiffs, under a pacto de retro sale, a parcel of land
located at Del Carmen (Taban), Minalabac,
Camarines Sur,
contain­ing an area of 31.3019 hactares.  On August
2, 1957, defendants redeemed the property from plaintiffs.  On the same day, the parties entered into an
agreement to spell out the manner in which they will share in the harvest of
standing palay crop, the pertinent portions of which
read as follow:

“1.  That on May 4, 1956, the Party of the
First Part (defendants) sold under a pacto de
retro sale a parcel of land located at Del Carmen (Taban),
Minalabac, containing an area of 31.3019, the
boundaries of which are more particularly described in the said deed of sale
and registered in the Notarial Registry of William E.
Dy-Liacco as Doc. No. 62, Page No. 21, Book No. VII, Series of 1956.

“2.  That on this 2nd day of August, 1957,
the Party of the First Part (defendants) had exercised the right to repurchase
by paying to the Party of the Second Part (plaintiffs) the sum of P10,000.00 with the condition however
that the Party of the First Part (defendants) shall allow the Party of the
Second Part (plain­tiffs) to share in the net harvest of the palay  planted in
said land, as follows:

‘To the Party of the
First Part (defendants), one-half of the net harvest; To the Party of the
Second Part (plaintiffs), one-half of the net harvest;’^[2]

“3. That the harvest
referred to is the palay planted in June, 1957,
harvest of which will take place sometime in September, 1957; that the net
harvest means and refers to the share of the landowner to the net
harvest.”^[3]

There was an initial harvest
of 127.95 cavanes of palay from the land in question pertaining to the owner’s
share, up to September
30, 1957.  There were divided equally between plaintiffs
and defendants.  Thereafter, a second
harvest of 105 cavanes of palay,
as the owner’s share, was realized, which defendants appropriated for
themselves.

Plaintiffs, claiming
entitlement to the one-half share of the harvest from the Land in
question made after September 30, 1957–which defendants, as vendors a retro,
refused to deliver to them–as vendees a
retro– filed, on December 27, 1957 a Complaint for Specific Performance with the Court of First Instance
of Camarines Sur, praying
that defendants be ordered to deliver their one-half share from the harvest or
its equivalent value.

Defendants, on the other hand, insist that their obli­gation to
share with plaintiffs the harvest from the land in question was with respect
only to the harvest made in September, 1957, and that with regard to the
harvest made thereafter, they were no longer obliged to share the same with
plaintiffs.

On December 29, 1964, the lower Court rendered judgment ordering
defendants to deliver to plaintiffs one-half of the 105 cavanes
of palay harvested after September, 1957, or the
equivalent value thereof at the rate of P11.50 per cavan,
or the amount of Six Hundred Three Pesos and Seventy-five Centavos (P603.75).

Hence, this appeal by defendants to the Court of Appeals on
February 1, 1965, on the following Assignment of Errors:

“I.    THE LOWER
COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
HARVEST IN QUESTION IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE PALAY WAS PLANTED BY THEM IN
JUNE 1957 AND THEREFORE THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO PAR­TICIPATE IN THE HARVEST
THEREOF WHETHER THEY ARE GATHERED IN SEPTEMBER 1957 OR THEREAFTER; and

“II.   THE
LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS HAVE STILL OBLIGATION TO DELIVER TO THE
PLAINTIFFS THE REMAINING ONE-HALF OF 105
CAVANES OF PALAY AS OWNER’S SHARE HARVESTED FROM THE REPURCHASE(D) PROPERTY AFTER
SEPTEMBER 1957.”^[4]

The foregoing take issue with the following findings of the lower
Court:

“The court therefore is of the opinion and so holds that the
real basis of the plain­tiffs’ right to participate in the harvest is the fact
that the palay was planted by them in June, 1957,
therefore, they have the right to participate in the harvest thereof whether
they were gathered in September or thereafter. 
It is clear that the palay was planted on the
land in June 1957 when the plaintiffs were still the owner of the same and
which was only repurchased by the defendants on August 2, 1957 while the fruits
of the palay were not yet ripe.  Hence, whether the palay
was harvested in Sep­tember 1957
or thereafter, the plaintiffs have the right to participate in the owner’s
share thereof because the palay plants
from where it was harvested in September was planted during the month of
June when the plaintiffs were still the owner of the same.”^[5]

Defendants contend that
Article 1617 of the Civil Code applies to the sharing arrangement between them
and the plain­tiffs with respect to the fruits existing on the land in question
at the time of repurchase.  Article 1617
reads thus:

“ART. 1617.  If at the time
of the exe­cution of the sale there should be on the land, visible or growing
fruits, there shall be no reimbursement for or prorating of those exist­ing at the time of redemption if no
indemnity was paid by the purchaser when the sale was executed.

“Should there have been no fruits at the time of the sale, and
same exist at the time of redemption, they shall be prorated between the redemptioner and the vendee, giving the latter the part corresponding to the time he
possessed the land the last year, counted from the anniversary date of the
sale.”

The same is without merit. 
Article 1617 of the Civil Code is not applicable.  The same applies only when the parties have
not provided for their sharing arrangement with respect to the fruits existing
at the time of redemption.  In the case
at bar, the Agreement dated August 2, 1957, specifically provided that the
parties would share equally the net harvest of the palay
planted on the land in question.  Since
said Agreement is not contrary to law, morals or public policy, the same is,
there­fore, binding on the parties.

We agree with the learned trial judge that plaintiffs have the
right to participate in the harvest made even after the month of September,
1957.  It should be noted that the palay was planted on the land in question in June when
plaintiffs–vendees a retro— were still the owners, since the
same was repurchased by defendants-vendors a retro on
August 2, 1957.  September mentioned in
the Agreement of August 2, 1957 was the month which the parties reckoned the palay planted in June would be harvested.  Thus, the phrase
“sometime in September 1957”. 
It was not, therefore, meant to limit the right of the plaintiffs to
participate in the harvest of the crop planted in June.

WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in
toto.  Costs against defendants-appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Acting Chairman), Antonio, Aquino, and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., is abroad.

^[1]
Resolution of September 9, 1967,
Rollo, p. 36.

^[2]
Complaint, par. 2, Record on Appeal, p. 1.

^[3]
Answer, par. 2, Ibid.,
p. 3; emphasis supplied.

^[4]
Defendants-Appellants’ Brief, pp. 1-2.

^[5]
Decision, Record on Appeal, p. 11.