G.R. No. L-12457
January 22, 1919
SERVILLANO AQUINO, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
EMETERIO TAÑEDO, defendant-appellant. (COUNTER CLAIM AS TO FRUITS) Aquino purchased purchased from Tanedo Tanedo several parcels of of land(P45,000). land(P45,000). By virtue of this this contract the plaintiff took possession of the lands purchased. Later the plaintiff and the defendant, agreed to consider the previous contract as rescinded. As a result, the plaintiff returned to the defendant the lands. The defendant, on his part, instead of returning the price received by him, subscribed in favor of the plaintiff another document in which he acknowledges that he owes the plaintiff the sum of P12,000. The defendant only paid the plaintiff the P2,000 in accordance with the contract. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed against the defendant an action in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, wherein he demanded of the defendant the payment of the P10,000.
There is no dispute over the fact that the defendant owes the plaintiff the P10,000 claimed by the latter . The question raised by this appeal is one that relates to the defendant's counterclaim. The sum demanded in this counterclaim is the value of the product of the lands, collected by the plaintiff during the time he was in possession of them until the plaintiff returned the lands to the defendant.
We are of the opinion that the plaintiff should be absolved from this counterclaim. The defendant invokes article 1295 of the Civil code, which prescribes that the rescission obliges the return of the things which were the objects of the contract, with their fruits and the price with interest. But the r e s c i s s i o n mentioned mentioned in the contract is
not the rescission referred to in this article 1295. Article 1295 refers to contract that are rescindible in accordance with law in the cases expressly fixed thereby, but it does not refer to contracts that are rescinded by mutual consent and for the mutual convenience of the contracting partie s. It is simply another contract for the dissolution of a previous one, and its effects should be determined by the agreement made by the parties, or by application of the other legal provisions and not by article 1295. The defendant argues that as he bound himself to pay, and in fact did pay, interest on the P10,000 which he received from the plaintiff as [a part of] the price of the land, it should be understood that the plaintiff, reciprocally, also bound himself to return, on his part, the fruits which he collected from these lands. However, plaintiff could not have bound himself to return to the defendant the fruits of the land that the plaintiff collected during his possession, inasmuch as the defendant did not pay, nor bind himself to pay, interest during the same time, as he bound himself subsequent to the rescission.
But the plaintiff held the lands by reason of his having purchased them from the defendant. On this account, his possession, until the contract of purchase and sale was dissolved and the lands were returned by him, was in good faith. As such possessor in good, faith, the fruits collected by him become his own (art. 451, Civil Code) and he is not obliged to return them to the defendant. In the absence of any covenant, this provisions should be applied to the instant case. Therefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.
