G.R. No. 49217 - Buiser vs. Cabrera

On November 26, 1930, Artemio Fule (principal) and Nemesio Cabrera (surety) executed a mortgage in favor of the Philippine Education Co., Inc.
The mortgage was taken to secure the payment of any and all sums not exceeding P3,930, and it encumbered four parcels of land plus a house of strong materials belonging to Nemesio Cabrera.
The aggregate assessed value of the properties was P8,185.38, with the mortgage document describing one of the parcels specifically as “a piece of residential land assessed at P750.00 and the house of strong materials built thereon assessed at P3,500.00 under Tax No. 62904 for the year 1925” having an area of 500 square meters, more or less.

In or before 1933, the Philippine Education Co., Inc. instituted civil case No. 6189 in the Court of First Instance of Laguna to foreclose the mortgage.
Following a favorable judgment, the sheriff sold the properties to the mortgagee for P5,342.10 and executed a final certificate of sale on August 26, 1933, later approved by the court on September 9, 1933.
On June 21, 1934, the company filed civil case No. 2432 in the justice of the peace court of San Pablo, Laguna, to oust Nemesio Cabrera and Artemio Fule from possession, resulting in their confession of judgment and the plaintiff taking possession of the properties.

Basilia Cabrera, acting as judicial administratrix of Nemesio Cabrera’s estate (following his death), attempted unsuccessfully to repurchase the four parcels from the Philippine Education Co., Inc.
She then instituted civil case No. 6839 in the Court of First Instance of Laguna to annul the judgments rendered in the foreclosure and forcible entry and detainer cases, alleging that Nemesio Cabrera had not been legally summoned or notified in those proceedings.
The suit to annul the foreclosure was decided in favor of the Philippine Education Co., Inc.

On March 23, 1937, during the pendency of the annulment action, the Philippine Education Co., Inc. transferred and conveyed the fourth parcel of land to Eutiquiano Buiser for P7,000 (with P2,000 down and the balance in quarterly installments of P400 each).
On August 9, 1939, Basilia Cabrera commenced the present action in the Court of First Instance of Laguna against Eutiquiano Buiser, seeking recovery of possession of a 3,518-square-meter parcel located in San Pablo.
The dispute centered on whether the contested parcel was part of the fourth parcel as described in the mortgage, sheriff’s certificate of sale, and deed of sale—which uniformly referred to a 500-square-meter lot—or if it encompassed a larger area of approximately 4,008 square meters inherited by Nemesio Cabrera.

The mortgage and related documents described the fourth parcel's boundaries and area with vagueness, stating a 500-square-meter area “more or less” and incorporating reference to boundaries such as “property of Crispin Cordero.”
However, outside evidence, including tax declarations and sketches (Exhibits A, 5-A, 5-B, and 8), indicated that Nemesio Cabrera owned a larger parcel of 4,008 square meters inherited from his father, Valentin Cabrera.
The Philippine Education Co., Inc. itself prepared tax declarations in 1937 showing the combined area (residential and secano portions) that amounted to over 4,300 square meters, yet the conveyance to Buiser reiterated the 500-square-meter description.
The petitioner (Buiser) contended that the full boundary description should prevail over the numerical area, invoking Article 1471 of the Civil Code and relying on previous jurisprudence (Loyola vs. Bartolome).
The factual record, however, revealed that the boundaries as provided were inconsistent and did not clearly identify the entire 4,008-square-meter lot, thereby casting doubt on whether the wider parcel was ever intended to be mortgaged.

Whether the parties intended to mortgage only the 500-square-meter residential lot (with the house) as explicitly stated, or the entire inherited lot comprising approximately 4,008 square meters.
Whether the vague and conflicting boundary descriptions in the mortgage, sheriff’s certificate, and deed of sale should be interpreted in favor of the larger or smaller parcel.

Whether Article 1471 of the Civil Code, which deals with sales for a lump sum, is applicable to the contract of mortgage in this case.
Whether the interpretation of the mortgage should be guided by Articles 1283 and 1289 of the Civil Code, which demand that contracts be construed according to the true intention of the parties and, in case of doubt, in a manner that effects the least transmission of rights.

Whether extrinsic evidence (such as tax declarations and physical inspections) clarifies the true extent of the mortgaged property despite the ambiguous boundaries.
Whether the doctrines of laches or estoppel apply given the plaintiff’s prior actions (such as attempts to repurchase the property) and acquiescence in possession by Nemesio Cabrera or his heirs.