Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16394)
Facts:
Jose Santa Ana, Jr. and Lourdes Sto. Domingo v. Rosa Hernandez, G.R. No. L-16394, December 17, 1966, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are spouses Jose Santa Ana, Jr. and Lourdes Sto. Domingo; the respondent is Rosa Hernandez.
The petitioners owned a 115,850-square-meter parcel in Barrio Balasing, Sta. Maria, Bulacan (TCT No. T-3598). On May 28, 1954, the spouses sold two separate portions of the tract to Rosa Hernandez for a single consideration of P11,000.00; the deed described the two portions by boundaries and stated areas of "12,500" and "26,500" square meters respectively, each qualified by the phrase "humigit kumulang" (more or less). After several other sales of portions of the same property to different vendees, the petitioners caused a subdivision plan (Psd-43187) of the entire land to be prepared and approved by the Director of Lands on January 13, 1955.
Unlike the other vendees, however, Hernandez refused to execute a subdivision/partition agreement for registration and refused to vacate the areas she occupied. She had a different subdivision plan prepared and approved on February 24, 1955 (Psd-42844), which reflected the areas she actually occupied and which were larger in the aggregate than the areas recited in the deed of sale.
On February 28, 1955 the petitioners sued Hernandez in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan (Civil Case No. 1036), alleging that Hernandez occupied an excess of about 17,000 square meters beyond what she purchased. The trial court framed the central question as whether the sale was by unit measure (price per square meter) or a lump-sum sale of identified parcels, and, finding for the plaintiffs, ordered Hernandez to vacate the excess and confine her occupation to Lots 4‑a and 4‑b as shown in the petitioners’ plan (Psd-43187).
Hernandez appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. No. 20582‑R, reversed the trial court, finding that the parties made a lump-sum sale (Article 1542, Civil Code), that the parcels were identified by conspicuous boundaries (a long continuous pilapil or dike and the extent the tenants tilled), and that Hernandez therefore was entitled to the lots as shown in her subdivision plan (Psd-42844) despite the increased area. The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The petitioners assi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in disturbing the trial court’s findings of fact on conflicting testimony?
- Was the deed a lump-sum sale governed by Article 1542 of the Civil Code (so that the buyer is entitled to the land within definite boundaries regardless of actual area), or was the sale by unit measure so that t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)