This proceeding originated in a complaint filed by the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., against the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., for the delivery of the amount of P13,850 or promissory notes or other instruments of credit for that sum payable on June 30, 1930, as bonus in favor of Mariano Lacson Ledesma; the complaint further prays that the sugar central be ordered to render an accounting of the amounts it owes Mariano Lacson  Ledesma  by way of bonus, dividends, or  otherwise, and to pay the plaintiff a sum sufficient  to satisfy the judgment mentioned  in  the complaint, and that the sale made by said Mariano Lacson Ledesma be declared null and void.

The Philippine National Bank filed a third  party claim alleging a preferential right to receive any  amount which Mariano Lacson Ledesma might be entitled to from the Talisay-Silay Milling Co.  as bonus, because  that would be civil fruits of the  land mortgaged to said  bank by said debtor for the  benefit of  the central referred to, and by virtue of a deed of assignment, and praying that said central be ordered to deliver directly to the intervening bank said sum on account of the latter's credit against the aforesaid Mariano Lacson Ledesma.

The corporation Talisay-Silay Milling Co.,  Inc., answered the complaint stating  that of Mariano Lacson Ledesma's credit, P7,500 belonged to Cesar Ledesma because he had purchased it, and praying that it be absolved from the com- plaint and that the proper party be named  so that the remainder might be delivered.

Cesar Ledesma, in turn, claiming to be the owner by purchase in good faith and for a consideration of the P7,500 which is a part of  the credit referred to above, answered praying that he be absolved from the complaint.

The plaintiff  Bachrach  Motor Co.,  Inc.,  answered the third party claim alleging that its credit against Mariano Lacson Ledesma was prior and preferential to that of the intervening bank, and praying that the latter's complaint be dismissed.

At the trial all the parties agreed to recognize and respect the sale made in favor of Cesar Ledesma of the P7,500 part of the credit in question, for which reason the trial court dismissed the complaint and cross-complaint against Cesar Ledesma authorizing the defendant central to deliver to him the  aforementioned sum of P7,500.  And upon conclusion of  the hearing, the 'court held that the Bachrach Motor Co.,  Inc., had a preferred right to receive the amount of P11,076.02 which was Mariano Lacson Ledesma's bonus, and it ordered the defendant central to deliver said sum to the plaintiff.

The Philippine National Bank appeals, assigning the following alleged errors as committed by the trial court:

1. 
   
2. In holding that the  bonus which the  Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., bound itself to pay the planters who had mortgaged  their land to the Philippine National Bank to secure the payment of the debt of said central to said bank is not civil  fruits of said land.
   
3. In not holding that said bonus became subject to the mortgage executed  by the  defendant Mariano  Lacson  Ledesma to the Philippine National Bank to secure the payment of his personal debt to  said bank when it fell due.
   
4. In holding that the assignment (Exhibit 9, P. N.  B.) of said bonus made on March 7, 1930,  by Mariano Lacson Ledesma to the Philippine  National Bank to  be applied to the payment of his debt to said Philippine National Bank is fraudulent.
   
5. In holding that the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., in civil case No. 31597 of the Court  of First  Instance of Manila levied a valid attachment upon the bonus in question.
   
6. In admitting and considering the  supplementary complaint filed by the  Bachrach  Motor  Co., Inc.,  alleging  as a cause of  action the attachment of the bonus  in question which said Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., in civil case No. 31821 of the Court of First Instance of Manila levied after the filing of the  original  complaint in this case,  and  after Mariano Lacson Ledesma in this case had been declared in default.                                             *
   
7. In holding that the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., has a preferential right to receive from the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., the amount of P11,076.02 which is in the possession of said corporation as the bonus to be paid to Mariano Lacson Ledesma, and in ordering the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., to deliver said amount to  the Bachrach  Motor Co., Inc.
   
8. In not holding that the Philippine National Bank has a preferential right  to receive from the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., the amount of P11,076.02 held by said corporation as Mariano Lacson Ledesma's  bonus, and in not ordering said Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc.,  to deliver said amount to the  Philippine National Bank.
   
9. In not holding that the amended complaint and the supplementary complaint of the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of  action in favor of the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., and  against the Talisay-Silay  Milling Co.,  Inc., or against the  Philippine National Bank.*'

The appellant bank bases its preferential right upon the contention  that the  bonus in  question is  civil fruits  of the land which the owners had mortgaged for the benefit  of the central giving the bonus, and that, as civil fruits of said land, said bonus was assigned by Mariano Lacson Ledesma on  March  7, 1930,  by virtue of the document Exhibit  S of said intervening  institution, which admitted in its brief that "if  the bonus  in  question is not civil  fruits or rent which became subject  to the  mortgage  in favor of the Philippine National Bank when Mariano Lacson Ledesma's personal obligation fell due,  the assignment of  March 7, 1930  (Exhibit 9, P. N. B.),  is null and void, not because it is fraudulent, for there was no intent of fraud in execufcing the deed, but that the cause or consideration of the as- signment was erroneous, for it was based upon the propo- sition that the bonus was civil fruits of the land mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank."   (P. 31.)

The fundamental question, then, submitted to our consid- eration is whether or not the bonus in question is civil fruits.

This is how that bonus came to be granted:  On December 22, 1923, the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc.,  was  indebted to the  Philippine National  Bank.  To secure  the payment  of its debt, it succeeded in inducing  its planters, among whom was  Mariano Lacson  Ledesma, to mortgage their land to the creditor bank.  And in order to compensate those planters for the risk they were running with their property  under that mortgage, the aforesaid central, by a  resolution passed on that same  date, i. e., December  22, 1923, and amended on March 23, 1928, undertook to credit the  owners of the plantation thus  mortgaged every year with a sum equal to two per centum of the debt secured according to the  yearly balance, the payment of  the bonus being made at once, or in part from time to time, as soon as the central became free of its  obligations to the aforesaid bank, and of those contracted by virtue of the contract of supervision, and  had funds which might be so used, or as soon as it obtained from said bank authority to make such payment.  (Exhibits 5, 6; P. N. B.)

Article 355 of the Civil Code considers three  things as civil fruits: First,  the rents of buildings; second, the proceeds from leases  of  lands; and, third,  the income from perpetual or  life annuities, or other  similar sources  of revenue.  It may be noted that according to the context of the law, the phrase "u otras andlogas" refers only to rents or income, for the adjectives "otras" and "andlogas" agree with the  noun "rentes," as do also the other adjectives "perpetuas" and  "vitalicias"  That  is why we  say that  by "civil fruits" the Civil Code understands one of three and only three things, to wit: the rent of a building, the rent of land, and certain kinds of income.

As the bonus in question is not the rent of a building or of land, the  only meaning of "civil fruits" left to be examined is that of "income."

Assuming that in the broad juridical sense of the word "income"  it might be  said that the bonus  in question is "income"  under article 355 of the Civil Code, it is obvious to inquire whether it is derived from the land mortgaged by  Mariano  Lacson Ledesma to the  appellant  bank  for the benefit of the central; for if it is not obtained from that land but from something  else, it is not civil fruits of that land, and  the bank's contention is untenable.

It is to  be noted that the said bonus bears no immediate, but only a remote and accidental  relation to the land mentioned, having been granted as compensation for the risk of having subjected  one's land to a lien in favor of the bank, for the benefit of the entity granting said bonus. If this bonus be  income or civil  fruits  of anything, it is income arising from said risk, or, if one chooses, from Mariano Lac- son Ledesma's generosity in facing the danger for the pro- tection of the central, but certainly it is not civil fruits or income from the mortgaged property, which, as far as this case is concerned, has nothing to do with it.  Hence, the amount of the bonus, according to the resolution of the cen- tral granting it, is not based upon the value, importance or any other circumstance of the mortgaged property,  but upon the total value of the debt thereby secured, according to the annual balance, which is something  quite distinct from and independent of the property referred  to.

Finding no merit in this appeal, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without express finding as to costs.  So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand,  Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.