G.R. No.

169890, March 12, 2007

FELICIANO ESGUERRA, CANUTO ESGUERRA, JUSTA ESGUERRA, ANGEL ESGUERRA, FIDELA ESGUERRA,
CLARA ESGUERRA, and PEDRO ESGUERRA, Petitioners,
vs.
VIRGINIA TRINIDAD, PRIMITIVA TRINIDAD, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN,
Respondents.
CARPIO MORALES, J.:

FACTS:
Felipe Esguerra and Praxedes de Vera were owners of several parcels of land in Camalig,
Meycauayan, Bulacan. Out of the 23,989 sqm of land under TD No. 12080, portion of 23,489 sqm was
sold to their grandchildren, herein petitioners. The remaining 500 sqm were sold to their other
grandchildren, brothers Eulalio and Julian Trinidad.
On October 13, 1965, Eulalio sold his share of the land to his daughters, herein respondents,
where OCT No. 0-3631 was issued on February 20, 1967 in their name. Meanwhile, petitioners sold to
respondents’ parents, Eulalio and Damiana a portion of about 5,000 sqm which was assigned as Lot No.
3591 of the 23,489 sqm they previously bought. In a survey, said land was actually measured 6,268
sqm. OCT No. 0-6498 was issued on August 21, 1972 in their favor. It was thereafter succeeded by
respondents after their parents’ death.
On August 29, 1994, petitioners filed with the RTC-Malolos, Bulacan two separate complaints
for the nullification of the two OCTs on the ground that they were procured through fraud or
misrepresentation. However, the RTC and the CA dismissed them.

ISSUES:
1. WON respondents’ acquisition and registration of the land constituted fraud.
2. WON the sale was of lump sum.
3. WON the petitioners’ action has prescribe.

HELD:
1. NO.
Evidence shows that appellees (respondents) acquired title over the subject property by virtue
of a deed of sale executed by their father Eulalio in their favor. In fact, petitioners, in their complaints,
even acknowledge that respondents observed and took the initial procedural steps in the registration of
the land, thus ruling out fraud in the acquisition of the certificate of title.
Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are final, conclusive and binding on
this Court, which is not a trier of facts. Fraud is a question of fact, and it must be supported by clear and
convincing proof. Although there are exceptions applying Rule 45, the case at bar does not fall
thereunder.

2. YES.
In sales involving real estate, the parties may choose between two types of pricing agreement: a
unit price contract wherein the purchase price is determined by way of reference to a stated rate per
unit area (e.g., ₱1,000 per square meter), or a lump sum contract which states a full purchase price for
an immovable the area of which may be declared based on an estimate or where both the area and
boundaries are stated (e.g., ₱1 million for 1,000 square meters, etc.)

Where both the area and the boundaries of the immovable are declared, the area covered
within the boundaries of the immovable prevails over the stated area. What really defines a piece of
ground is not the area, calculated with more or less certainty, mentioned in its description, but the
boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits (Lietz, Inc. v. CA)

In the case at bar, though measured as 5,000 sqm, more or less, such measurement is only an
approximation, and not an exact measurement. Under Article 1542, what is controlling is the entire
land included within the boundaries, regardless of whether the real area should be greater or smaller
than that recited in the deed.

The use of "more or less" or similar words in designating quantity covers only a reasonable
excess or deficiency. The increase by ¼ of the area indicated in the deed of sale cannot be considered as
an unreasonable excess.

3. YES.
The prescriptive period to file the corresponding action is 1 year. The complaints were filed in
1994, more than 27 years after OCT No. 0-3631 was issued and more than 20 years for OCT No. 0-6498.

A certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the

property in favor of the person whose name appears therein which commences after the lapse or
expiration of 1 year from the date of entry of the decree of registration when all persons are
considered to have a constructive notice of the title to the property. Afterwhich, title to the property
can no longer be contested. This system was so effected in order to quiet title to land.