Case Digest (G.R. No. 29449)
Facts:
Leodegario Azarraga v. Maria Gay, G.R. No. 29449, December 29, 1928, the Supreme Court, Villamor, J., writing for the Court.
By a public deed dated January 17, 1921 (Exhibit A), the plaintiff-vendor sold two parcels of land to the defendant-vendee for a lump sum of P47,000, payable in instalments: P5,000 on signing; P20,000 upon delivery of the Torrens title to the first parcel; P10,000 upon delivery of the Torrens title to the second parcel; and P12,000 one year after delivery of the Torrens title to the second parcel. The vendee paid P5,000 at signing; the vendor delivered the first parcel’s Torrens title and received P20,000; the Torrens title to the second parcel was issued in March 1921 and delivered, but the vendee did not pay the P10,000 then due nor the P12,000 when the last instalment matured.
The plaintiff sued for P22,000 (P10,000 + P12,000) with legal interest from April 1921 on the P10,000 and from April 1922 on the P12,000. The defendant admitted the sale but defended on three grounds: (a) that the vendor misrepresented the area of the second parcel as 98 hectares when in fact it was about 60–70 hectares, and she therefore sought a proportional reduction of the price (to P38,000); (b) that she had paid additional sums totaling P4,000 beyond those conceded by the plaintiff; and (c) that she never refused to pay the properly reduced price, alleging the plaintiff refused to accept payment. By cross-complaint the defendant sought P15,000 in indemnity for malicious prosecution.
At trial the plaintiff maintained the sale was a lump-sum transaction and that the cross-complaint had prescribed. The trial court found no fraud or deceit by the plaintiff, concluded the parties had agreed to a lump-sum sale of a determinate object, applied Article 1471 of the Civil Code, and ordered the defendant to pay P19,300 with legal interest at 8% per annum (dating the P7,300 portion from April 30, 1921 and th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the trial court correct in finding that there was no deceit or actionable misrepresentation by the vendor that would entitle the vendee to a reduction of the price?
- Does Article 1471 of the Civil Code permit a proportional reduction of the price where two parcels sold for a lump sum are found to have less area than stated in the contract?
- Was the dismissal of the defendant's cross-complaint for damages and the award of in...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)