US v. CABALLEROWALLY ANN D. YUMUL

FACTS

Pellire sent his cow to the municipal hall to have it branded.

He was issued a certificate by the clerk of treasury.

He was then invited to the office of Caballero where the latter proposed to buy the cow, but which Pellire refused.

Caballero sent the certificate back to the clerk and asked him to erase Pellire’s name and replace his.

The clerk refused; Caballero then kept the certificate and asked him to go home.

FACTS:

Caballero, through the use of force and intimidation, seized the cow belonging to Pellire.

Caballero offered Pellire P4.50 for the cow and tendered the money.

Pellire refused since the amount was so low and he already promised the cow to Agravante.

Caballero took the rope out of the hand of Pellire and kept the cow, saying that if he resisted, he would call the police and have him arrested.

FACTS:

• The cow which is the subject matter of this action was an offspring of another that belonged to Caballero.

• Pellire was a tenant of Caballero and a herdsman charged with the cows of Caballero.

• Agreement: Of each three calves born, two of them should belong to the owner (Caballero) and the third to the herdsman (Pellire).

ISSUE:Whether the cow belongs to

Pellire or to Caballero.

ARGUMENTS

PELLIRE

The cow in question was the oldest, that there were two other younger ones.

That the cow herein concerned was his, as "his share.”

CABALLERO

Pellire, needing money, went to Caballero's house and transferred to him his rights in the cow, for the price of P27.

The document, found in the record was authorized by the treasurer who is said to be an opponent of Caballero.

Macario Pellire could not present the document of origin or acquisition that was necessary to enable him to register the animal in his name, for the reason that the cow that produced the offspring was not his.

It does not appear strange that the defendant, upon learning that a certificate of ownership had been issued to Pellire, should have demanded that it be made out in his name.

The legal presumption from these facts is that the cow in question belonged to the defendant.

DOCTRINE

Article 355 of the Old Civil Code:

"Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil, and the brood and all other produce of

animals.”

Article 442 of the New Civil Code:

Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil, and the young and other products of animals.

“The legal presumption, in the absence of proof to the contrary, is that the calf, as

well as its mother, belong to the owner of the latter, by the right of accretion.”

DOCTRINE:

QUESTIONS

What are NATURAL FRUITS?

Spontaneous products of the soil, and the young and other products of animals.

What is the legal presumption regarding the ownership of the young of an animal?

It belongs to the owner of the mother of such young.