G.R. No.

L-12457

January 22, 1919

SERVILLANO AQUINO, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
EMETERIO TAEDO, defendant-appellant.
(COUNTER CLAIM AS TO FRUITS)
Aquino purchased from Tanedo several parcels of land(P45,000). By virtue of 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defendant, agreed to consider the previous contract as rescinded.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 rescission 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but it does not refer to contracts that are rescinded by mutual consent and for the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 parties. 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.