G.R. No. 161366 - Sycip, Gorres, Velayo and Company vs. De Raedt

In a judgment rendered on February 1, 1985 in Cadastral Case No. N-6 (LRC Rec. No. N-611) before Judge Juan Y. Reyes of the RTC, Cebu City, Branch 14, the court adjudicated in favor of Spouses Antonio L. Caballero and Leonarda B. Caballero, awarding them several parcels of land, including Cadastral Lot No. 11909.
On May 21, 1987, Antonio Caballero moved for the issuance of the final decree of registration for the involved lots; subsequently, on May 25, 1987, Judge Renato C. Dacudao of the same court ordered the issuance of the final decree and the corresponding titles in favor of the Caballeros.

On June 11, 1990, respondents (the Caballeros) sold Lot No. 11909 to petitioner Carmen del Prado on the basis of a tax declaration covering the property.

The deed of sale described the property with a definitive statement of boundaries: North by Lot No. 11903, East by Lot No. 11908, West by Lot No. 11910, and South by Lots Nos. 11858 and 11912, and mentioned an area of approximately 4,000 square meters “more or less.”

An Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1305 was issued on November 15, 1990 and later entered in the Registration Book on December 19, 1990. However, the technical description on the OCT declared the lot’s area to be about 14,457 to 14,475 square meters, resulting in a discrepancy with the deed of sale.

On March 20, 1991, petitioner filed a “Petition for Registration of Document Under Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1529” within the same cadastral proceedings.

Petitioner contended that the language of the deed of sale indicated a sale for a lump sum (cuerpo cierto) whereby the vendor was obligated to deliver the entire area falling within the boundaries, even if such area exceeded the contractually stated 4,000 square meters.

Respondents opposed the petition arguing that only 4,000 square meters had been sold, contending that the sale was not for a lump sum, and moved for the dismissal of the petition on grounds of prescription and lack of jurisdiction.

After trial on the merits, the RTC concluded that petitioner had established a clear and positive right to Lot No. 11909.

The trial court found that the sale was indeed for a lump sum since there was no evidence to indicate payment per unit of area, and the entire lot was the subject of the sale.

On August 2, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision granting petitioner’s petition, ordered the Register of Deeds of Cebu City to cancel OCT No. 1305 issued in the name of the respondents, and to register the property in the name of the petitioner covering the entire Lot No. 11909.

An appeal was filed, and on September 26, 2000, the CA reversed the RTC decision.

The CA held that petitioner had availed herself of an improper remedy since the “petition for registration of document” is not a remedy provided under P.D. 1529 once the original registration has been effected.
The CA ruled that the lower court erroneously assumed jurisdiction over a remedy not sanctioned under the Property Registration Decree, and accordingly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Whether the CA committed grave error by making findings of fact contrary to that of the trial court regarding the nature of the sale.
Whether the CA erred in failing to rule on the sale being for a lump sum (cuerpo cierto).
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain a petition for registration of the deed given the statutory limitations, particularly after the one-year period of indefeasibility had run its course.

Making findings of fact that are contrary to those of the trial court with respect to the true nature of the sale transaction.
Failing to address and rule on the characterization of the sale as a lump sum (cuerpo cierto) transaction.

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the petition for the registration of the deed of absolute sale executed on June 11, 1990, given that such remedy may not be proper after the decree of registration had become indefeasible.

Whether the substantial discrepancy between the area stated in the deed (approximately 4,000 sq m “more or less”) and the area declared in the Original Certificate of Title (approximately 14,457–14,475 sq m) falls within the “more or less” tolerance under Article 1542 of the Civil Code, or whether it indicates that respondents intended to sell only a portion of the lot.