Bachrach Motor Co. vs. Talisay-Silay Milling Co.

, PNB

The petitioner is Bachrach Co., a private corporation is the creditor
of a mortgagor. While the respondent Talisay, is a sugar central
indebted to PNB, the creditor bank, which is also a respondent in
this case.
Why did their paths cross? The petitioner Bachrach Co. is the
creditor of Mariano Ledesma. Mariano Ledesma is a planter of
Talisay Co. and one of the owners of the hacienda which had been
mortgaged to PNB to guarantee the debt of Talisay to said creditor
banker.
The case arose because of a complaint filed by the petitioner
against Talisay-Silay Milling for the recovery of sum of money
against the bonus or dividend which Talisay declared in favor of
Mariano Ledesma. Why delivered to Mariano? Talisay bound itself
to pay the planters who mortgaged their land by virtue of a
resolution passed on Dec. 23, 1923.
The PNB filed a complaint in intervention alleging that it had a
preferred right to said bonus granted by Talisay to defendant
because said properties were mortgaged to it to secure the
obligations of the Ptalisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. and said bonus
being a civil fruit of the mortgaged lands.
Issue: Is the bonus in question a civil fruit and hence should pertain
to PNB on account of the mortgage on Ledesmas land?
Held: No. A. It is not one of those meant by Art. 442 of the Civil
Code when it says other similar income since the phrase merely
refers to things analogous to rents, leases, and annuities.
B. Assuming that it is income, it is not income obtained
or derived from the land itself, but obtained as compensation for
the risk assumed by the owner. It should, moreover, be
remembered that the bonus was not based upon the value or
importance of the land but upon the total value of the debt secured.
The bonus had no immediate relation to the lands in question but
merely a remote and accidental one and, therefore, it was not a
civil fruit of the real properties mortgaged to PNB.