iv. Salvatierra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

107797, August 26, 1996

Interpretation of Contracts
SALVATIERRA V. COURT OF APPEALS
August 26, 1996 G.R. No. 107797 HERMOSISIMA, JR
Recit Ready Synopsis
Enrique Salvatierra died and left a parcel of land to his brothers Tomas, Bartolome,
Venancio, Macario, and sister Marcela. On May 20, 1980, Anselmo, son of Mariano
registered the whole Lot no. 26 with 749 sq. m. land area in his name even if he only owns
405 sq. m. of land portion in Lot 26 as sold by his father to him. Lito Longalong and
Paciencia Mariano who bought a portion of land in Lot 26 of 149 sq. m. land area brought an
action for reconveyance on the said lot on November 22, 1985. Anselmo contends that such
action already prescribed in 4 years as provided in article 1391 (action be brought for
annulment within 4 yrs upon discovery of fraud.) However, the CA ruled that the prescription
periods in the case at bar is 10 years according to Art. 1144.

The issue is whether Longalong is entitled to reconveyance of the 149 square meters in Lot
26. – YES

In this case, there is no uncertainty in the terms and conditions of the extrajudicial partition
(Extrajudicial Partition with Confirmation of Sale). Because Macario's (later Anselmo's)
portion of Lot 26 is only 405 square meters, Venancio was entitled to the remaining 344
square meters, of which 149 square meters were sold to Longalong. Longalong is entitled to
reconveyance since his complaint was submitted five years after the formation of Anselmo's
fraudulent Original Certificate of title, and the prescriptive time on reconveyance is 10 years,
not four years, as stated in Caro v. CA.

Provisions/Concepts/Doctrines and How Applied to the Case

Article 1370 of the New Civil Code, which states: "Article 1370 — If the terms of a
contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the
literal meaning of its stipulation shall control." Contracts, which are the private laws of the
contracting parties, should be fulfilled according to the literal meaning of their stipulations if
their terms are clear and leave no room for doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties.
FACTS
 Enrique Salvatierra died intestate and without issue in 1930. His legitimate brothers
Tomas, Bartolome, Venancio, and Macario, as well as his sister Marcela, all have the
surname Salvatierra. His estate comprised of three separate property pieces (Cadastral
Lot 25, covered by Tax Declaration 11950, Cadastral Lot 26, covered by Tax Declaration
11951, and Cadastral Lot 27, covered by Tax Declaration 11949).
 By deed of sale dated 4 May 1966, Macario Salvatierra sold Lot 26 to his son, Anselmo
Salvatierra, for the sum of P1,000.00. Marcela, on the other hand, sold her part to
Venancio. Tomas bought Bartolome's stake from his heirs. On September 24, 1968, the
surviving legal heirs and descendants of Enrique Salvatierra completed a "Extrajudicial
Partition with Confirmation of Sale." Venancio possessed 1041 square meters of Lot 27
and a piece of Lot 26 (about 749 square meters) after the division, Anselmo owned 405
square meters of Lot 26, and Tomas' heirs owned 1,116 square meters of Lot 25.
 Venancio then sold the whole Lot 27 and a 149 square meter piece of Lot 26 to couples
Lino Longalong and Paciencia Mariano on June 15, 1970. Because Anselmo Salvatierra
 was able to secure a title in his name (Original Certificate of Title 0-4221) covering the
entire of Lot 26, it was revealed in 1982 during a relocation survey that the 149 square
meter part of Lot 26 was beyond Longalong's fence. Efforts to settle the dispute at the
barangay level were ineffective because Purita Salvatierra (Anselmo's widow) refused to
comply with Lino Longalong's demand that the 149 square meter section of Lot 26 be
returned to him.
 Longalong filed a case with the Regional Trial Court for the reconveyance of the said
portion of Lot 26. The court a quo dismissed the case on the grounds that Longalong
failed to establish ownership of the portion of the land in question, and that the
prescriptive period of four years from discovery of the alleged fraud committed by
defendants’ predecessor Anselmo Salvatierra within which plaintiffs should have filed
their action had already elapsed.
 The Court of Appeals overturned the decision, finding that a seller can only sell what he
owns or is permitted to sell; and that a co-owner of property can, of course, sell his pro
indiviso share to anybody, but he cannot sell more than his share. As a result, the
appeal was filed.
ISSUE/S (relevant to the syllabus)
Whether Longalong is entitled to reconveyance of the 149 square meters in Lot 26 - YES
RULING (include how the law was applied)
Article 1370 of the Civil Code states that "if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no
doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulation shall
control." Contracts which are the private laws of the contracting parties should be fulfilled
according to the literal meaning of their stipulations if their terms are clear and unequivocal.

In this case, there is no uncertainty in the terms and conditions of the extrajudicial partition
(Extrajudicial Partition with Confirmation of Sale). Because Macario's (later Anselmo's)
portion of Lot 26 is only 405 square meters, Venancio was entitled to the remaining 344
square meters, of which 149 square meters were sold to Longalong. Longalong is entitled to
reconveyance since his complaint was submitted five years after the formation of Anselmo's
fraudulent Original Certificate of title, and the prescriptive time on reconveyance is 10 years,
not four years, as stated in Caro v. CA.

DISPOSITIVE
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, we resolve to DENY the petition for
want of merit, with costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED