That we, Spouses ANTONIO L. CABALLERO and LEONARDA B. CABALLERO, Filipinos, both of legal age and residents of Talamban, Cebu City, Philippines, for and in consideration of the sum of FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P40,000.00), Philippine Currency, paid by CARMEN DEL PRADO, Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident of Sikatuna St., Cebu City, Philippines, the receipt of which is full is hereby acknowledged, do by these presents SELL, CEDE, TRANSFER, ASSIGN & CONVEY unto the said CARMEN DEL PRADO, her heirs, assigns and/or successors-in-interest, one (1) unregistered parcel of land, situated at Guba, Cebu City, Philippines, and more particularly described and bounded, as follows:"A parcel of land known as Cad. Lot No. 11909, bounded as follows:of which parcel of land we are the absolute and lawful owners.North : Lot 11903
East : Lot 11908
West : Lot 11910
South : Lot 11858 & 11912
containing an area of 4,000 square meters,
more or less, covered by Tax Dec. No. 00787 of the Cebu City Assessor's Office, Cebu City."
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby granted and judgment is hereby rendered in favor of herein petitioner. The Register of Deeds of the City of Cebu is hereby ordered and directed to effect the registration in his office of the Deed of Absolute Sale between Spouses Antonio Caballero and Leonarda Caballero and Petitioner, Carmen del Prado dated June 11, 1990 covering Lot No. 11909 after payment of all fees prescribed by law. Additionally, the Register of Deeds of the City of Cebu is hereby ordered to cancel Original Certificate No. 1305 in the name of Antonio Caballero and Leonarda Caballero and the Transfer Certificate of Title be issued in the name of Petitioner Carmen del Prado covering the entire parcel of land known as Cadastral Lot No. 11909.9
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appealed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. No pronouncement as to costs.10
- WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT CONTRARY TO THAT OF THE TRIAL COURT[;]
- WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN FAILING TO RULE THAT THE SALE OF THE LOT IS FOR A LUMP SUM OR CUERPO CIERTO[;]
- WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PETITION FOR REGISTRATION OF THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE DATED 11 JUNE 1990 EXECUTED BETWEEN HEREIN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS[.]11
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., P1,000 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 the estimate or where both the area and boundaries are stated (e.g., P1 million for 1,000 square meters, etc.). In Rudolf Lietz, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (478 SCRA 451), the Court discussed the distinction:"...In a unit price contract, the statement of area of immovable is not conclusive and the price may be reduced or increased depending on the area actually delivered. If the vendor delivers less than the area agreed upon, the vendee may oblige the vendor to deliver all that may be stated in the contract or demand for the proportionate reduction of the purchase price if delivery is not possible. If the vendor delivers more than the area stated in the contract, the vendee has the option to accept only the amount agreed upon or to accept the whole area, provided he pays for the additional area at the contract rate.
x x x x
In the case where the area of an immovable is stated in the contract based on an estimate, the actual area delivered may not measure up exactly with the area stated in the contract. According to Article 1542 of the Civil Code, in the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or decrease of the price, although there be a greater or less areas or number than that stated in the contract. . . .
x x x x
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. In cases of conflict between areas and boundaries, it is the latter which should prevail. 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. In a contract of sale of land in a mass, it is well established that the specific boundaries stated in the contract must control over any statement with respect to the area contained within its boundaries. It is not of vital consequence that a deed or contract of sale of land should disclose the area with mathematical accuracy. It is sufficient if its extent is objectively indicated with sufficient precision to enable one to identify it. An error as to the superficial area is immaterial. Thus, the obligation of the vendor is to deliver everything within the boundaries, inasmuch as it is the entirety thereof that distinguishes the determinate object.14
A caveat is in order, however. The use of "more or less" or similar words in designating quantity covers only a reasonable excess or deficiency. A vendee of land sold in gross or with the description "more or less" with reference to its area does not thereby ipso facto take all risk of quantity in the land..
Numerical data are not of course the sole gauge of unreasonableness of the excess or deficiency in area. Courts must consider a host of other factors. In one case (see Roble v. Arbasa, 414 Phil. 343 [2001]), the Court found substantial discrepancy in area due to contemporaneous circumstances. Citing change in the physical nature of the property, it was therein established that the excess area at the southern portion was a product of reclamation, which explained why the land's technical description in the deed of sale indicated the seashore as its southern boundary, hence, the inclusion of the reclaimed area was declared unreasonable.15
About; substantially; or approximately; implying that both parties assume the risk of any ordinary discrepancy. The words are intended to cover slight or unimportant inaccuracies in quantity, Carter v. Finch, 186 Ark. 954, 57 S.W.2d 408; and are ordinarily to be interpreted as taking care of unsubstantial differences or differences of small importance compared to the whole number of items transferred.
Endnotes:
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Special Order No. 824 dated February 12, 2010.
** In lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. per Raffle dated February 22, 2010.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., with Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 8-15.
2 Lot Nos. 10222, 10516, 10585, 10752, 11833, 11834, 11854, 11860, 11909, 11911, 11888; RTC Judgment dated February 1, 1985; records, p. 191.
3 Records, p. 193.
4 RTC Order dated May 25, 1987; Exhibit "14," id. at 194.
5 "Exhibit 2-B," records, p. 9.
6 OCT No. 1305; Exhibit "15," records, p. 196.
7 Records, p. 1.
8 Rollo, pp. 226-227.
9 Id. at 90.
10 Id. at 55.
11 Id. at 358.
12 Article 1542. In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or decrease of the price, although there be a greater or lesser areas or number than that stated in the contract.
The same rule shall be applied when two or more immovables are sold for a single price; but if, besides mentioning the boundaries, which is indispensable in every conveyance of real estate, its area or number should be designated in the contract, the vendor shall be bound to deliver all that is included within said boundaries, even when it exceeds the area or number specified in the contract; and, should he not be able to do so, he shall suffer a reduction in the price, in proportion to what is lacking in the area or number, unless the contract is rescinded because the vendee does not accede to the failure to deliver what has been stipulated.
13 G.R. No. 169890, March 12, 2007, 518 SCRA 186.
14 Id. at 196-198.
15 Id. at 199.
16 Salinas v. Faustino, G.R. No. 153077, September 19, 2008, 566 SCRA 18.
17 6th Ed., 1990.
18 TSN, January 20, 1992, pp. 44, 53.
19 Roble v. Arbasa, G.R. No. 130707, July 31, 2001, 362 SCRA 69, 82.
20 Rollo, p. 54.
21 Id.