University of the Philippines College of Law Dizon

Sales A2025

Case Name Melliza v. City of Iloilo

Topic Subject Matter > Requisites of a Valid Subject Matter > Must be
Determinate or at least Determinable

Case No. | Date GR No. L-24732 | April 30, 1968

Petitioner/s PIO SAN MELLIZA

Respondent/s CITY OF ILOILO, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE

COURT OF APPEALS

Ponente Bengzon, J.P., J.

Case Summary Juliana Melliza executed an unnamed public document transferring

the ownership of three parcels of residential land to the Municipality of
Iloilo for a consideration. She sold the remaining interest to Remedios
San Villanueva, who in turn transferred her rights to Pio San Melliza.
The City donated the city hall site to UP-Iloilo, which enclosed the site
with a wire fence. Melliza sought payment for the value of the lot, but
he did not obtain recovery. Melliza then filed an action with CFI-Iloilo
against the City and UP for the recovery of the lot or of its value. The
CFI and the CA ruled that the unnamed instrument executed by Juliana
included the conveyance of the lot being contested.

The SC resolved the issue of whether or not the public instrument

covered the lot being contested, to which it ruled in the affirmative.

Reading the public instrument in toto shows that if the parties intended
merely to cover the specified lots, there would have been no need for
the next paragraph in the instrument; the more reasonable
interpretation to view the second paragraph is as describing those other
portions of land contiguous to the lots aforementioned that will be
found needed for the construction of the city hall site. There is no
question that the contested lot is contiguous to the lots covered by the
public instrument. The fact remains that for twenty years, Melliza and
his predecessors-in-interest did not object to the possession or take any
act of possession over the said lot. Applying the principles of civil law,
as well as laches, estoppel and equity, said lost must be necessarily
deemed included in the conveyance in favor of Iloilo City.

Decision WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed insofar as it

affirms that of the Court of First Instance, and the complaint in this
case is dismissed. No costs.

Doctrine The requirement of the law that a sale must have for its object a
determinate thing is fulfilled as long as, at the time the contract is
entered into, the object of the sale is capable of being made determinate

Version 1 Page 1 of 3
University of the Philippines College of Law Dizon
Sales A2025

without the necessity of a new or further agreement between the

parties.

Relevant Facts

• Juliana Melliza owned three parcels of residential land in Iloilo City. Loot 1214 had
29,073 sqm.
• 1931 – Juliana donated to the then Municipality of Iloilo 9,000 sqm of said lot to serve
as the site for the municipal hall. However, the donation was revoked because the area
was found inadequate to meet the requirements of the development plan (“Arellano
plan”).
• 1932 – Juliana executed an unnamed instrument in favor of the Municipality of Iloilo,
transferring the lots (some in part, some in whole) for a consideration of PHP 6,422.00
and certifying that the transfer is for definitive sale for the purpose of the Arellano plan.
• 1938 – Juliana sold her remaining interest on Lot 1214 to Remedios Sian Villanueva,
who then transferred her rights to the portion of land to Pio San Melliza. Melliza’s TCT
contained an annotation stating that a portion of Lot 1314 belongs to the Municipality
of Iloilo.
• 1949 – the City of Iloilo, which succeeded the Municipality, donated the city hall site
together with the building thereon to UP- Iloilo, consisting of more or less 15,350 sqm.
• 1952 – UP enclosed the site donated with a wire fence. Melliza made representations
through his lawyer with the city authorities for payment of the value of the lot, No
recovery was obtained because the City did not have funds. UP then obtained a TCT
covering the three lots.
• 1955 – Melizza filed an action in CFI – Iloilo against the City and UP for recovery of
the lot or of its value. The CFI dismissed the complaint, ruling that the unnamed
instrument Juliana executed in favor of the Municipality included in the conveyance
the lot being contested (“such other portions or lots as were necessary for the municipal
hall site”); thus, the City had the right to donate the lot to UP.
• The CA affirmed the CFI decision, but it ordered the remand of the case for reception
of evidence to determine the area actually taken by the City for the construction of
avenues, parks and for city hall site.

Issue/s and Ratio

1. W/N the public instrument executed by Juliana covered the lot YES
being contested

• The paramount intention of the parties was to provide the Municipality with lots
sufficient or adequate in area for the construction of the city hall site, with its avenues
and parks. For this matter, a previous donation for this purpose was made but was
revoked due to the inadequacy of the area of the lot donated.
• Reading the public instrument in toto shows that if the parties intended merely to cover
the specified lots, there would have been no need for the next paragraph; the more
reasonable interpretation to view the second paragraph is as describing those other
portions of land contiguous to the lots aforementioned that will be found needed for
the construction of the city hall site.

Version 1 Page 2 of 3
University of the Philippines College of Law Dizon
Sales A2025

• Appellant challenged this view on the ground that the description of said other lots is
legally insufficient, as the object would allegedly not be determinate as required by law.
This fails on several counts; the requirement of the law that a sale must have for its
object a determinate thing is fulfilled as long as, at the time the contract is entered into,
the object of the sale is capable of being made determinate without the necessity of a
new or further agreement between the parties. The specific mention of “according to
the Arellano plan” sufficiently provides a basis for rendering determinate said lots
without the need of a new and further agreement of the parties.
• There is no question that the contested lot is contiguous to the lots covered by the
public instrument. The fact remains that for twenty years, Melliza and his
predecessors-in-interest did not object to the possession or take any act of possession
over the said lot. Applying the principles of civil law, as well as laches, estoppel and
equity, said lost must be necessarily deemed included in the conveyance in favor of
Iloilo City.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed insofar as it affirms that of the Court of
First Instance, and the complaint in this case is dismissed. No costs.

Version 1 Page 3 of 3