DASMARIÑAS T. ARCAINA and MAGNANI T. BANTA v NOEMI L.
INGRAM, represented by MA. NENETTE L. ARCHINUE
[G.R. No. 196444. February 15, 2017.]
Arcaina owns Lot 3230 at Salvacion, Sto. Domingo, Albay. In 2004, her
attorney-in-fact, Banta, entered into a contract of sale with Ingram. Banta
showed Ingram and Ingram’s attorney-in-fact, Archinue the lot’s metes and
bounds and represented that it has an area of more or less 6,200 sq. m. per
the tax declaration covering it. The purchase price was P1,860,000, of which
Ingram was able to pay P1,715,000 through installments. Banta and Ingram
then executed a Memorandum of Agreement acknowledging the previous
payments and the remaining obligation of Ingram of P145,000. A deed of
absolute sale was executed wherein the lot was described to have an area
of 6,200 sq. m. more or less. Ingram thereafter caused the property to be
surveyed and discovered that the actual area of the lot is 12,000 sq. m.
Archinue, in behalf of Ingram, instituted a recovery case
- praying that Ingram be declared as owner of the whole lot +
damages + attorney’s fees and litigation expenses + to enjoin the
vendors from undertaking acts of ownership over the unsold
portion.
- that Banta insisted that the difference of 5,800 sq. m. remains
unsold and wanted to fence the said portion
- that by virtue of the sale, she owns the whole lot and that she is
ready to pay the balance of P145,000 as soon as the vendors
recognize her ownership of the whole property
Arcaina and Banta answered
- that the parties agreed that only 6,200 sq. m shall be soled at P300
per sq.m.
- that Ingram declared only 6,200 sq. m. for tax purposes while
Arcaina declared the remaining portion under her name without
objection from Ingram
- that Ingram failed to show that she has a right over the unsold
portion, thus the complaint for recovery of possession should be
dismissed
The MCTC ruled against Ingram and asked her to pay the remaining
balance.
1. Archinue’s testimony was inconsistent; she claimed that the entire
property was sold but also said that she was not present when the
sale was consummated.
2. Archinue, Ingram and Jeffrey (Ingram’s husband) knew that the lot
being sold had an area of 6,200 sq. m. only based on the copy of the
tax declaration given to them by Banta
3. That for Ingram to be awarded the excess portion, she should have
presented evidence that she paid for the surplus area consistent
with Art. 1540 of the CC
Art. 1540. If, in the case of the preceding article, there is a
greater area or number in the immovable than that stated
in the contract, the vendee may accept the area included in
the contract and reject the rest. If he accepts the whole
area, he must pay for the same at the contract rate.
RTC – reversed MCTC’s Order. Declared Ingram as the owner of the whole
lot but she should still pay the balance.
1. Neither of the parties presented competent evidence to prove the
actual area; no plan duly prepared and approved by the
government was presented, only a photocopy of the cadastral map
was presented
2. That Art. 1542 (sale of real estate in lump sum) applies in this case;
having sold Lot 3230 for a lump sum, Arcaina is obligated to deliver
all the land included in the boundaries of the property, regardless of
whether the real area should be greater or smaller than what is in
the deed of sale
CA – affirmed RTC’s ruling
1. That other than the statements of the parties, no evidence was
presented to show that the actual area is more or less 12,000 sq. m.
 2. That the parties’ statements cannot be simply admitted as true and
correct because the area of the land is a matter of public record and
presumed to have been recorded in the Registry of Deeds
3. That the best evidence should have been a certified true copy of the
survey plan duly approved by the proper government agency
4. That the sale was for a lump sum and not on a per-square-meter
basis. The parties merely agreed on the purchase price of P1.86
million for the 6,200 sq. m.
The court cited Rudolf Lietz, Inc. v CA: in case of conflict
between the area and the boundaries of a land subject of the sale,
the vendor is obliged to deliver to the vendee everything within the
boundaries.
5. The CA found the excess area as substantial which should not have
escaped the discerning eye of an ordinary vendor of a piece of land
Arcaina and Banta moved for reconsideration (DENIED), raising for the first
time the issue of prescription; that under Art. 1543 of the CC, Ingram should
have filed the action within six months from the delivery of the property.
(TN: the deed of sale was executed on April 13, 2005 but the case was filed
only on January 25, 2006.)
They also insisted that the property was not sold for a lump sum and that
they were aware that the property contains more than 6,200 sq. m. which
was the reason why the area sold is specifically stated in the deed of sale.
Unfortunately, the word “portion” was omitted.
Yes. The Deed of Sale showed that the property was conveyed to Ingram at
the predetermined price of P1.86 million and there was no indication that it
was bought on a per-square-meter basis.
Art. 1542 of the CC governs the sale: where both the area and the
boundaries of the immovable are declared in a sale of real estate for a lump
sum, the area covered within the boundaries of the immovable prevails
over the stated area. The vendor is obliged to deliver all that is included
within the boundaries regardless of whether the actual area is more than
what was specified on the contract of sale and shall do so without a
corresponding increase in the price. This is particularly true when the stated
area is only an approximate, such as when the words “more or less” were
used.
The facts in Del Prado v Sps. Caballero are analogous to the present case. In
that case, Del Prado was entitled only to the area of more or less 4000 sq.
m. stated in the contract of sale (vis-à-vis the actual technical description of
the area which is 14,457 sq. m). The Court ruled that Art. 1542 admits of an
exception. The use of “more or less” or similar words in designating
quantity covers only a reasonable excess or deficiency.
The Court finds that the difference of 5,800 sq. m. is too substantial to be
considered reasonable. It is almost double the area stated in the deed of
sale. Also, at the time of the sale, Ingram did not have knowledge of the
actual land area. She merely relied on the tax declaration. Thus, when she
accepted the offer, the object of her consent is only 6,200 sq. m.

They said that contemporaneous with the execution of the contract of sale,
they delivered the area sold and constructed a fence on the unsold portion
which was allegedly recognized by Ingram when she introduced
improvements confined to the area delivered.

ISSUE: Was Lot 3230 sold for a lump sum?

HELD:

(IN FAVOR OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER/VENDOR)