Lex Rex Ph

Sibal v. Valdez Digest

“Mobilization by Anticipation”

G.R. No. L-26278, August 4, 1927
Leon Sibal plaintiff-appellant v. Emiliano Valdez et al, defendant appellee


(P) Leon Sibal attached his crops (growing on his land) as security for his loan from (R) Valdez. Sibal offered to redeem the sugarcane later but Valdez refused. Valdez then took possession of several of his crops.

Filing with CFI, Sibal prayed to restrain Valdez because he argues that the palay he attached in favor of Valdez is part of his real property, thus cannot be taken away.

In Dec 1924, CFI favored Leon Sibal but Valdez opposed claiming that “sugarcane is personal property and not subject to redemption.” His prayer: “Declare me as the owner of the crops and Sibal to pay me for my losses.”

In 1926, RTC Judge Lukban overturned CFI and favored Valdez: “Gathered crop is personal property.” RTC absolved Valdez and condemned Sibal to pay.


Is the crop in this case real or personal property?


The crops in this case are personal property. Generally, crops are real property as “ungathered products” under Article 415 of NCC. But under certain conditions, growing crops may be considered personal property. What are those conditions? (1) Valid Sale, (2) Ejectment of Lessee, (3) Exclusion from Land Mortgage – Manresa and Spanish authorities. “Standing crops may be considered personal property when there are rights on the growing crop… or mobilization by anticipation” – Supreme Court of Louisiana. Can a valid sale be made of crops still growing? Yes, if it is reasonably certain to come into existence as the natural increase. (Mr. Mechem Author on Sales)

Crops are generally real property. But if there is a valid “mobilization” on the part of the owner in favor of such crops, they become personal property.

Other Content You May Be Interested In:


“The child is one of the most important assets of the nation. It is thus important we be careful in rearing the children even so if they are illegitimates, as in this

Read More »

Chi Ming Tsoi v CA Digest

“Love is Useless Unless Shared” CHI MING TSOI, petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents. IN RELATION TO COURSE: Persons under Psychological Incapacity, Nullity of marriage by reason of protracted avoidance of

Read More »


Export Processing Zone Authority vs. CHRG.R. No. 101476, 14 April 1992 Facts Certain parcels of land in Cavite were designated as Export Processing Zones by PD 1980. It was later sold to

Read More »

Lim vs. CA Digest

January 24, 2000 Facts In 1994, Pastor Y. Lim died intestate. Surviving spouse Rufina filed a petition for administration of his estate. The properties of respondent corporations (Auto Truck et. al.) were

Read More »

Marcos II vs. CA Digest

Facts The BIR filed criminal charges against the Estate of Marcos Sr. and caused the filing of P23B+ ETR, and P184M ITR in relation to its estate tax assessments. Notices were then

Read More »