VILLARTA V.

CA (May 29, 1987)

FACTS:
Respondent Rosalinda Cruz entrusted to petitioner Victoria Villarta seven pieces of jewelry on November
1968. On December of the same year, Villarta exchanges one jewelry to another and issued a post-dated
check in favor of Cruz. Cruz deposited the check but it was dishonored for lack of funds.

An estafa case was filed against Villarta but she argued that she can only be civilly liable because even
though the check bounced, she only gave it for a pre-existing obligation. She contends a person cannot
be imprisoned for non-payment of debt.

ISSUE:
WON the transaction is a “sale or return”

HELD:
The transaction is not a sale or return but a sale on approval or sale on acceptance.

When Cruz gave the jewelry to Villarta on November, the clear intention is to make the latter choose
which item she wanted to buy. There was no meeting of the minds yet at this point and hence, it cannot
be considered as delivery.

If ownership over the jewelry was not transmitted on that date, then it could have been transmitted only in
December 1968, the date when the check was issued. In which case, it was a "sale on approval" since
ownership passed to the buyer. Vallarta, only when she signified her approval or acceptance to the seller,
Cruz, and the price was agreed upon.

It is still criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check which is made punishable under the Revised
Penal Code, and not the non-payment of the debt.

Roble v. Arbasa
362 SCRA 69

FACTS:

Spouses Arbasa purchased from Fidela Roble a unregistered parcel of land. According to the deed
of sale, the land had a total of 240 sqm. However, due to persistent efforts in reclaiming a portion of
the sea, the land increased to 884 sqm. Since then the spouses were in continuous possession of
the entire parcel of land, Adelaida Arbasa tolerated her sister’s Fidela Roble stay in the house, while
Veronica and Lilibeth Roble, nieces stay with Fidela. Shortly after Fidela’s death, Veronica and
Lilibeth Roble claimed a portion of the land with an area of 644sqm. According to the Roble’s the two
lots located at the southern portion of the lot were owned by Fidela and Gualberto Roble what was
only conveyed to spouses Arbasa was the 240 sqm.

ISSUE:

Who has the better right in claiming ownership of the lot?

RULING:

The plaintiff-appellant Adelaida Roble Arbasa is the one who has the better right in claiming entire
ownership over the lot as based on the rulling of the case which stated that entitled to the
possession of the entire parcel of land containing an area of 844 square meters which is covered by
Tax Declaration No. 67 in the name of Adelaida Roble Arbasa.

It was repeatedly ruled that where land is sold for lump sum and not so much per unit of measure or
number, the bounderies of the land stated in the contract determine the effects and scope of the
sale, not the area thereof. The vendors are obligated to deliver all the land included within the
bounderies, regardless of whether the real area should be greater or smaller than that recited in the
deed. This is particularly true where the area is described as ‘’humigit kumulang” that is more or
less.

STA.ANA V. HERNANDEZ (January 17, 1966)

FACTS:

Spouses Jose Santa Ana, Jr. and Lourdes Sto. Domingo sold a land in Bulacan to respondent Rosa
Hernandez for P11,000 lump sum. (there were two other previous sales to different vendees of other
portions of the land)

The boundaries of the land were stated in the deed of sale and its approximate land area.

Petitioners-spouses caused the preparation of the subdivision plan but Hernandez didn’t agree to the
partition. As such, petitioners-spouses filed a case alleging that Hernandez is occupying in excess of
17000 square meter of the land sold. Hernandez claims that the excess area is part of the land she
bought.

ISSUE:

WON the excess area occupied by Hernandez is part of the land sold.

HELD:

The sale involves a definite and identified tract, a corpus certum, that obligated the vendors to deliver to
the buyer all the land within the boundaries, irrespective of whether its real area should be greater or
smaller than what is recited in the deed.
To hold the buyer to no more than the area recited on the deed, it must be made clear therein that the
sale was made by unit of measure at a definite price for each unit. The sale in this case only involves the
definite boundaries but only approximate land areas. As such,  Art 1542 concerning the sale for lump sum
must be considered.