Viña v. Buenaventura
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 27, 1938, defendant Simon Buenaventura obtained a loan of P4,500 from the late Delfin de la Viña, payable on or before March 31, 1939. As security, Buenaventura constituted a second mortgage on his three lots and, as additional guaranty, assigned 900 piculs of export sugar to be derived from the crops of the 1939-1940 harvest from the mortgaged lots. Procedural History: Defendant failed to pay the obligation at maturity. Plaintiffs filed a complaint for foreclosure of the mortgage on April 3, 1939, praying for the sale of the three lots and the 900 piculs of sugar. Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint, contending that the mortgage was indivisible and that the action was premature because the sugar was not yet in existence when the action was filed, as the milling season had not commenced. The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint. The Petition: Plaintiffs appealed the order of dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the mortgage on existing real property and future crops is indivisible such that an action for foreclosure is premature if the future crops are not yet in existence. Whether a valid sale can be made of a thing not yet in existence.
Ruling
The demurrer should have been overruled. The foreclosure of the mortgage on both the lots and the future sugar may be decreed simultaneously, although the sale of the mortgaged properties may need to be ordered at different times. A valid sale may be made of a thing not yet in existence if it is reasonably certain to come into existence as a natural increment or usual incident of something already existing.
Ratio Decidendi
On the indivisibility of the mortgage and prematurity of the action: The Court held that the mortgage on the three lots and the 900 piculs of export centrifugal sugar, despite the latter not being in existence at the time of the filing of the action, does not render the foreclosure suit premature. The Court reasoned that the foreclosure of both the existing real property and the future crops can be decreed at the same time. However, the actual sale of these mortgaged properties might need to be conducted at different times, particularly if a simultaneous sale is impossible due to the nature of the property, such as future crops not yet harvested. On the validity of selling a thing not yet in existence: The Court affirmed that a valid sale can be made of a thing that is not yet actually in existence at the time of the agreement or order of sale. This is permissible provided that the future thing is reasonably certain to come into existence. The Court cited legal authorities stating that such a sale is valid if the future item is a natural increment or a usual incident of something already in existence. In this case, the 900 piculs of export sugar were deemed reasonably certain to come into existence as a natural by-product of the sugar cane already planted on the mortgaged lots.
Main Doctrine
A mortgage on both existing property and future crops may be foreclosed simultaneously, although the sale of the future crops may occur at a later time when they come into existence, provided their existence is reasonably certain.