Siari Valley v Lucasan

SUMMARY: 200 heads of cattle were driven or wandered from Siari Valleys pasture lands into the adjoining ranch of defendant
Filemon Lucasan. Lucasan himself admitted such commixtion although he says plaintiff had already retrieved its animals. Held: !here
is no dou"t that hundreds of cattle "elonging to the plaintiff have "een driven into or wandered into defendants land. #o actual
evidence exists that all these missing animals $%2&' were ta(en "y defendant or his men) "ut in view of proof that his men on two
occasions drove away more than 30 heads of cattle, it is not erroneous to elieve that the others must have also een driven
away on suse!uent or "rior occasions, applying "y analogy the principle that one who stole a part of the stolen money must have
ta(en also the larger sum lost "y the offended party. Lucasan acted in ad faith. Under the #ivil #ode $if commin%lin% of two
thin%s is made in ad faith, the one res"onsile for it will lose his share&' $#** &%2) #** +,&'
(A#)S:
!he Siari Valley -state .nc. a duly organi/ed agricultural corporation started raising livestoc( on its 0102hectare ranch in 3023
with , native cattle. .n 302& it ac4uired &0 native cattle and two .ndian "ulls. .t also introduced native stoc( into its herd thru a
native "lac( "ull. 5ale offspring of this "ull were castrated.
6rior to the 7apanese occupation the fence enclosing plaintiff8s pasture was well (ept. 9owever in 30+& a portion thereof was
destroyed with the result that some cattle strayed into the ad*oinin% unfenced ran%e of defendant Lucasan&
Siari Valley
Several men in the employ of Lucasan ta(ing advantage of the situation willfully and deli"erately rounded u" and drove many
animals from the Siari "asture towards Lucasan+s %ra,in% land. :uring the war a farmer saw the men of defendant driving
cattle $&0 head' from the Siari Valley -state to his ranch.
30++; :efendant informed plaintiff that some of the latter8s cattle were mixed with his cows. <ith due permission they $he and
plaintiff8s men' were allowed to catch eight $%' head of the Siari Valley -state cattle in the toril of defendant. Lucasan also informed
this witness that there were still aout -00 head of the com"any+s cattle in his ranch mixed with his herd.
=cto"er 30+>; .n one of Lucasans afternoon visits to ?oemers family $6resident of Siari Valley' he informed ?oemer that Siari
Valley had at least 210 head of cattle in his pasture land) 6resident of Siari Valley and Lucasan came to an a%reement "ermittin%
the former to round u" and drive "laintiff+s cattle&
9owever on the date set for the drive Lucasan+s wife "rotested and thereafter defendant refused to admit that there were 210
head of Siari Valley -state cattle in his ranch.
?oemer also saw two sons of defendant driving some of plaintiff8s cattle into defendant8s ranch.
<hen a ?ed *ross *ommittee mem"er re4uested ?oemer to contri"ute to the fund ?oemer offered to give at least &0 head of
cattle provided the committee would ma(e arrangements with Lucasan to permit him to get plaintiff8s cattle inside defendant8s toril.
@ certain Fiscal A"ay was sought "y the ?ed *ross who negotiated with Lucasan and the latter agreed.
?oemer and his men were a"le to round up ,% head of cattle during the first day of the drive "ut said cattle were turned loose the
next morning "y defendant and his wife.
:uring the 7apanese occupation the company8s officers "eing @merican had to flee to the interior for personal safety. As a result
the mana%ement and su"ervision of the ranch was "ractically aandoned&
Lucasan
Lucasan admitted that some cattle of the Siari Valley -state did enter his ranch. 9owever thru the good offices of Fiscal A"ay the
company rounded up and drove away from his ranch 0% head of cattle in #ovem"er 30+>
.n 5ay 30+, plaintiff8s herdsmen too( away 1 more head of cattle.
9e affirmed that as of :ecem"er 3013 he had +00 head on his ranch all "elonging to him after deducting 200 head which he had
disposed of.
:ecem"er 30+%; Siari Valley -state .nc filed an action to recover aout -00 head of cattle that were driven, or wandered,
from its "asture lands into the ad*oinin% ranch of defendant (ilemon Lucasan, Sindan%an, .amoan%a
o 6L@.#!.FF; @s(ed for the return of its animals with their offspring or for payment of those disposed of "y defendant plus
damages.
o :-F-#:@#!; :enied having appropriated or retained any cattle "elonging to the corporation. =n the contrary alleging
that plaintiff had ta(en away from his pasture 301 head of cattle thru force and intimidation he demanded suita"le
compensation.
@fter the defendant had answered the complaint the court on motion of plaintiff ordered on :ecem"er 3& 3010 an inspection of
Lucasan8s ranch and the rounding up of plaintiff8s livestoc( allegedly roaming there.
!he order said that such livestoc( shall "e (ept in an enclosure in defendant8s ranch. !he order was later supplemented "y a
directive turning over to defendant Lucasan as trustee of the court all the impounded cattle $a"out &23' which plaintiff claimed
were its own.
9owever Lucasan violating his duties as trustee disposed of several head of such cattle
)R/AL #0UR): .n favor of Siari Valley
o @djudicating to the Siari Valley -state all the cattle that may e found in the cattle ranch of (ilemon Lucasan,
s"ecially the 3-1 heads that had een entrusted to his care as receiver or trustee of this #ourt
o =rdering the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff all said cattle or their value mountin%, to 230,000&00, to pay damages
to the Siari Valley -state for the +00 heads of cattle that he sold since 30+> up to the date of the trial at the rate of
6300.00 per head or 6+0000.00 plus interest at the rate of >B from the date of the trial of this case in 7anuary 3013
o <ith regard to the contempt proceedings Filemon Lucasan is found CA.L!D of the charges) Lucasan violating his duties
as trustee disposed of several head of such cattle) and fined him for contempt
/SSU4S:
3. <hether plaintiff8s cattle were commingled with defendant8sE $D-S'
2. <hether the commixtion was made in "ad faithE $D-S'
&. .f he acted in "ad faith what is the resultE
RA)/0:
3. !he evidence of record sufficiently shows that hundreds of cattle "elonging to plaintiff have "een driven into or wandered into
defendant8s land. :efendant himself admitted such commixtion although he says plaintiff had already retrieved its animals.
Lucasan started raising his own cattle in 30&0 with 1& head of cattle he received as his share from his partners ?. 5acias and !ec(
Lee.
@ &0B increase per year should give him around +3, head of cattle in 3013. Det in 3013 he had +00 head after disposing of 2&0
head according to his evidence or Fless than %00F $which means ,00 at least' according to his answer. G+00H2&0 I >&0 =?
+00H,00$H' I 3300$H'J Must be 417 in 1951, why 1100???
5here did he %et the e6cess of -00 or 7008 @ccording to :r. 6acifico Ceronimo defendant sold 200 head in =/amis *ity) and
there is evidence that he mar(eted cattle in Sindangan :ipolog and other parts of Kam"oanga.
=n the other hand the ?eport of the Siari Valley for Septem"er 30+3 to Septem"er 30+1 showed that the company had or should
have 179: head of cattle 2+0 of which was slaughtered or died leaving a total of 1;13 head. !hereafter it sold 10& head)
therefore it should have 021 head. @ctually it could count only 302 head. )herefore it lost :-3 head& G3,>%22+0 I313&) 313&210&
I 021) 0212302I%2&J Where is the 823????
/t is not far<fetched to conclude <as the lower court concluded< that these were "art of the 700 which was dis"osed of y
Lucasan, and a "art is the remainin% floc= in his "ossession&
#o actual evidence exists that all these missing animals $&2&' were ta(en "y defendant or his men) "ut in view of the proof that his
men on two occasions drove away more than &0 head of cattle it is not erroneous to "elieve that the others must have also een
driven away on suse!uent or "rior occasions, a""lyin%, y analo%y, the "rinci"le that one who stole a "art of the stolen
money must have ta=en also the lar%er sum lost y the offended "arty. $6. v. Fernande/) 6. v. Luada'
.n fact Ceorge 6uth 6lantation 5anager testified that "efore 7uly 2, 3013 he saw from his plane ,00 head of plaintiff8s cattle on
the ranch of the defendant2appellant. #ow as there are only &23 cattle impounded the conclusion flows that defendant dis"osed
of aout 300 head of "laintiff+s cattle&
=f the herd now (ept "y defendant &22 head were impounded for purposes of inspection and identification. !wo out of three
experts found the great majority to "e mesti/os $.ndian or #ellore' an average of a"out 20 only "eing natives.
!his is significant "ecause defendant8s floc( could have mesti/os all his original stoc( "eing entirely native. .t is true that he
declared his partners F5acias and !e !ec( Lee furnished him with +3 head of cattle 2 one of which was an .ndian "ull and another
@ustralian. Lut he was contradicted "y !ee !ec( Lee who asserted that the cattle delivered to Lucasan were all of native stoc(.
=f course it is 4uite possi"le that some of these mesti,os are the result of the intermin%lin% which e%an in 1>33 and
continued u" to 1>;1& @lthough %enerally, offs"rin% or the increase of domestic animals elon%s to the owner of the dam
y accretion, $A.S. v. *a"allero' it is impossi"le to trace such ownership of these mesti/os under the circumstances.
2. D-S Lucasan acted in "ad faith.
9is cow"oys 2and even his sons ?afael and Vicente2 rounded up and drove plaintiff8s cattle into his pasture
9e (new he had plaintiff8s cattle "ut refused to return them despite demands "y plaintiff) he even threatened plaintiff8s men when
the latter tried to retrieve its animals
9e harassed them with false prosecutions for their attempts to get "ac( the company8s animals)
9e wouldn8t allow plaintiff8 s cow"oys to get into his pasture to identify its floc() he re"randed several Siari Valley cattle with his own
"rand)
9e sold cattle without registering the sales)
@fter some cattle impounded were entrusted to his custody as trustee he disposed of not less than 1 head of cattle among those
he received as such trustee)
9e disposed of much more cattle than he had a right to.
&. Filemon had "een actuated "y "ad faith in retaining in his ranch to multiply and increased there for his own "enefit the cattle
"elonging to the Siari Valley -state and under the #ivil #ode ?if the commin%lin% of two thin%s is made in ad faith, the one
res"onsile for it will lose his share 6 6 6?& @Art& 3:-A See Art& 373 Bew #ivil #ode&C
US *uris"rudence
F<here the goods are so mingled that they cannot thereafter properly "e identified or divided all the inconvenience or loss
resulting from the confusion is thrown on the party who occasioned it) and generally it is for him to distinguish his own property or
lose it it "eing held in this connection that the rule of confusion of goods is merely a rule of evidence.F $31 *.7.S. 0>&20>+.'
F<here one fraudulently willfully or wrongly intermingles his goods with those of another so that there is no evidence to
distinguish the goods of the one from those of the other the wrongdoer forfeits all his interest in the mixture to the other part. .n
other words he cannot recover for his own proportion or for any part of the intermixture "ut the entire property vests in him whose
right is invaded.F $31 *.7.S 0>3.'
F!hus where one wilfully places his "rand on another8s cattle intermingling them with his own and on account of the change or
destruction of the identity of the goods he is una"le to distinguish and separate his own goods from the others he will "e held to
forteit his own.F $7ohnson vs. ?oc(er et al. !ex *ity @' $9agan et al. v. *asper'
D/S20S/)/V4: @FF.?5-: