Roble v.

Arbasa
362 SCRA 69 (2001)

Area of Law on Sales Covered:

This case covers the Rules on Effects of Delivery for Immovables Sold for a Lump Sum

SALIENT FACTS:

1. A married couple bought from the wife’s sister a parcel of land bordered by a
seashore in its southern side with “an approximate area of 240 square meters
more or less.”
2. Through the collective efforts of the buyer and seller’s family, they were able to
reclaim a portion of the sea which led to the increase in the size of the property
up to 844 square meters.
3. Even after the sale, the buyer tolerated the stay of her sister (the seller) in the
land where the latter’s house was built.
4. Together with the seller were her nieces who lived with her until she passed
away.
5. With the passing of the seller, the buyers wanted the nieces to finally vacate the
property which they claim to be their own by virtue of the sale they executed with
the deceased.
6. On the other hand, nieces then argued that it was clear in the deed of sale that
the total area of land that the buyers purchased from the seller was only 240
square meters and did not include the 644 square meters which was added by
virtue of the reclamation efforts done on the property.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an excess or deficiency of 644 meters more than what is stipulated in a
deed sale selling a parcel of land with “an approximate area of 240 square meters more
or less” is considered reasonable enough for it to be validly included in the delivery of
the said land to the buyer.

SUPREME COURT HELD:

Resolution of the Issue:

No, the excess of 644 square meters is not reasonable excess or deficiency to be
deemed included in the deed of sale executed between the buyers and seller which only
provides that the subject property on sale was only approximately 240 square meters
more or less.

Law Applicable to the ISSUE AND FACTS:

Article 1542 of the Civil Code provides that in a sale of real estate made for a lump sum,
there shall be no increase or decrease of the price, although there be a greater or lesser
area or number than that stated in the contract, especially with the use of qualifying
words of “more or less” in describing the area.

Application of the Law Cited in the Problem:

The Court ruled that while Article 1542 provides that there shall be no increase or
decrease of the price although there be a greater or lesser area or number than that
stated in the contract, an exception to that rule is that such excess or deficiency must be
reasonable enough. In the case at bar, the deed of sale was very clear that the parcel of
land to be sold only had an approximate size of 240 square meters more or less and
consequently, the excess or deficiency of 644 square meters is not only way far off from
the stipulated land area, but it is also unreasonable to be deemed included in the sale
that occurred between the buyer and seller. Because of this, the buyer cannot claim
ownership over the said excess of the subject property and eject the nieces from their
occupation in it.

Doctrine of the Case:

A buyer of the land, when sold in gross or with the description “more or less” or similar
words in designating quantity covers only a reasonable excess or deficiency.

CRITIQUE AND ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court properly ruled that the 644 square meters was not a reasonable
excess or deficiency covered by the deed of sale between the buyer and seller. The law
in Article 1542 of the Civil Code provides that there shall be no increase or decrease in
the price although there be a greater or lesser area or number than that stated in the
contract. However, it could be noticed that the same provision does not provide any
qualification as to the allowable discrepancy between what is stipulated in the contract
and the actual property delivered by the seller. And in the absence of such a
qualification, this provision may be prone to fraud and abuse by giving wide and
uncontrolled discretion on the part of either buyer or seller.
By putting up an exception to Article 1542 and qualifying that the excess or deficiency
should be “reasonable” as elucidated further by the decisions promulgated on the
matter, the Supreme Court was able to provide a necessary safeguard to ensure that
both parties in a contract of sale would truly give and receive only what is due to each of
them. More importantly, the “reasonable” qualification protects not only the buyer and
seller but also third persons, such as in the given case where the buyers cannot wield
the deed of sale as a weapon against the nieces to drive the latter out of their
occupation in the subject property when the buyers’ claim is unreasonably excessive or
deficient of what was stipulated in the contract.