Case report by: Padilla, Kayrel V.

Bachrach Motors v Talisay-Silay Milling Co.

G.R. No. 42462. August 31 1!3"##
$%&'rial (.
)octrin'* Bonus is not civil fruits as contemplated in Art. 442. It is not one of
tose meant by te la! !en it says "oter similar income# since te prase
refers merely to tin$s analo$ous to rents, leases and annuities. Assumin$ tat it
is income, still, it is not income obtained or derived from te land itself, but
income obtained as compensation for te ris% assumed by te o!ner.
+acts*
&e &alisay' (ilay )illin$ Co., Inc., in order to secure its indebtedness to te
Pilippine *ational Ban%, induced its planters, amon$ !om !as )ariano
+edesma to mort$a$e teir land to te creditor ban%. As compensation and bonus
to tose planters for te ris% tey !ere runnin$ !it teir property under te
mort$a$e, te aforesaid central, by a resolution passed on ,ecember 22, -.2/,
$ranted to respondent, )ariano +acson +edesma, te sum of P-.,.--.--, !ic
sum, o!ever, !ould not be payable until te mont of 0anuary, -./1.
&ereafter, or on ,ecember 21, -.2., Bacrac )otor Co., Inc., brou$t an action
in te Court of 2irst Instance of Iloilo a$ainst te &alisay'(ilay )illin$ Co., Inc., to
recover from it te sum of P-/,341 a$ainst te bonus or dividend !ic, by virtue
of te resolution of ,ecember 22, -.2/, said Central &alisay'(ilay )illin$ Co.,
Inc., ad declared in favor of te defendant )ariano +acson +edesma as one of
te o!ners of te acienda !ic ad been mort$a$ed to te Pilippine *ational
Ban% to secure te obli$ation of te &alisay'(ilay )illin$ Co., Inc., in favor of said
ban%.
&e Pilippine *ational Ban%, on te oter and, on 2ebruary -/, -./1, filed a
complaint in intervention alle$in$ tat in ad a preferred ri$t to said bonus
$ranted by te central to te defendant )ariano +acson +edesma as one of te
o!ners of te aciendas !ic ad been mort$a$ed to said ban% to ans!er for
te obli$ations of te Central &alisay'(ilay )illin$ Co., Inc., basin$ suc alle$ation
on te fact tat, as said properties !ere mort$a$ed to it by te debtor )ariano
+acson +edesma, by virtue of te deed to secure te obli$ations of te &alisay'
(ilay )illin$ Co., Inc., and said bonus bein$ a civil fruit of te mort$a$ed lands,
said ban% !as entitled to it on te $round tat te mort$a$e of Au$ust ., -.2/,
ad become due.
$ssu'*
5eter te bonus in 6uestion is a civil fruit and ence sould pertain to P*B on
account of te mort$a$e of +edesma7s land8
,'l-*
*o. &e bonus is not a civil fruit. &e (upreme Court eld tat te bonus ad no
immediate relation to te lands in 6uestion but merely a remote and accidental
one and, terefore, it !as not a civil fruit of te real properties mort$a$ed to te
Pilippine *ational Ban% to secure te obli$ation of te &alisay'(ilay )illin$ Co.,
Inc., bein$ a mere personal ri$t of )ariano +acson +edesma. It is not one of
tose meant by Art. 442 of te Civil Code !en it says "oter similar income#
since te prase merely refers to tin$s analo$ous to rents, leases, and annuities.
Assumin$ tat it is income, still it is not income obtained or derived from te land
itself, but obtained as compensation for te ris% assumed by te o!ner. It sould,
moreover, be remembered tat te bonus !as not based upon te value or
importance of te land but upon te total value of te debt secured. 9ence, te
P*B does not ave a preferred ri$t !it re$ard to te bonus as a$ainst erein
petitioner.