You are on page 1of 2

Eutiquiano Buiser vs Basilia Cabrera G.R. No.

L-49217 October 21, 1948

FACTS:

*On November 26, 1930, Artemio Fule as principal and Nemesio Cabrera as surety
executed a mortgage in favor of the PHilippine Education Co., to secure the payment of any and
all sums of money not to exceed P3,930 which Artemio Fule might be obligated to pay to the
said company. The mortgage encumbered four parcels of land and a house of strong materials
belonging to the surety Nemesio Cabrera with an aggregate assessed value of P8,185.38.

*In 1933, Philippine Education Co. instituted a civil action in the CFI against Artemio Fule
and Nemesio Cabrera to foreclose said mortgage, and judgement was rendered in favor of
plaintiff, the sheriff sold the four parcels of land and the building described in the mortgage, with
Philippine Education Co., Inc., as the highest bidder of P5,342.10 and executed in its favor a final
certificate of sale on August 26,1933 and approved by the court.

*On June 21, 1934 Phil. Ed. Inc. instituted a civil action to oust Cabrera and Fule from the
possession of the realties, and the plaintiff succeeded in taking possession of the properties.

*Basilia Cabrera in her capacity as judicial administratix of the estate of Nemesio Cabrera
(deceased) unsuccessfully tried to repurchase the described properties, and averred to annul the
judgement on the foreclosed properties on the ground that Cabrera had not been legally
summoned nor did he authorize anybody to represent him, but the case was decided in favor of
Phil.Ed Inc.

*On March 23, 1937 during the pendency of the action for the annulment of the
foreclosure proceedings, Phil.Ed. Inc. transferred the properties to Eutiquiano Buiser for the
consideration of P7,000 payable with P2,000 down and the balance in quarterly installments of
P400.

*On august 9, 1939, Cabrera as judicial administratrix of the deceased Nemesio Cabrera,
instituted the present action in the CFI against Buiser to recover from the latter the possession of
land of P3,518 sq.m. Defendant Buiser and Phil.Ed. Co contended that the parcel of land formed
part of the fourth parcel described in the mortgage. Plaintiff averred that the fourth parcel of
land above mentioned had an area of only 500sq.m. and did not include the portion of 3,518
sq.m which she was seeking to recover.

*The sheriff's certificate of sale :"A piece of residential land assed at P750 and a house....
having an area of 500sq.m. declared in the name of Nemesio Cabrera."

The CFI ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

ISSUE: whether, in describing the fourth parcel of land, the parties to the said contract of
mortgage intended to include therein the entire lot of 4,008 sq.m. which Nemesio Cabrera
inherited from his father or only that portion of 500 sq.m. on which his house was built.

RULING:

From the descriptions of the properties mortgaged contained in their respective tax
declarations. "there is no proof it had previously sent a representative to view the premises" it is
reasonable to assume that when it signed and accepted the mortgage. Phil.Ed. Co took into
consideration the area and assessed the value of the property rather than its boundaries gave no
idea of the value furnished a concrete idea of its extent and worth. Phil.Ed.Co. took a mortgage
on a residential lot of 500sq.m. it certainly did not expect to receive as security a lot more than
eight times larger than that 4,008 sq. m.

"Article 1283. However general the terms of a contract may be, it shall not be construed
as including things and cases different from those with respect to which the persons interested
to contract."

The contract of mortage was purely gratitious, he having merely consented to respond
with his properties for the obligations of his son-in-law Artemio Fule up to the amount of P3,390
as such Art. 1289. applies that:

"If it should be absolutely impossible to solve, by the rules established by the preceding
articles any doubts concerning the incidental details of a gratitious contract they should be
settled in such a way as to effect the least possible transmission of rights or interests. When such
doubt arises in construing onerous contracts, it shall be resolved in favor of the greatest
reciprocity of interests.