G.R. No. L-16394 December 17, 1966
JOSE SANTA ANA, JR. and LOURDES STO. DOMINGO, petitioners, vs. ROSA HERNANDEZ, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, spouses Jose Santa Ana, Jr. and Lourdes Sto. Domingo, owned a parcel of land in Bulacan. On May 28, 1954, they sold two separate portions of this land to respondent Rosa Hernandez for a single price of P11,000.00. The deed of sale described the portions with boundaries and approximate areas of 12,500 and 26,500 square meters. After the sale, the petitioners prepared a subdivision plan (Psd-43187) which the respondent did not conform to, refusing to execute an agreement of subdivision and partition. Instead, the respondent caused the preparation of her own subdivision plan (Psd-42844), which tallied with the areas she actually occupied. The petitioners filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, claiming the respondent was occupying an excess of 17,000 square meters beyond what she bought. The respondent claimed the alleged excess was part of the areas purchased. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the respondent to vacate the excess portions and confine her occupation to the areas in the petitioners’ plan. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint and declaring the respondent the owner of the lots in her own plan, applying Article 1542 of the Civil Code. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred: 1) in disturbing the findings of fact of the trial court; and 2) in holding that the deed of sale was for a lump sum under Article 1542 of the Civil Code, despite allegedly indefinite boundaries.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court held that findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are conclusive and not reviewable by the Supreme Court, barring a showing that they are totally devoid of support in the record or so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion. The first assignment of error was overruled. On the second issue, the Court found that the deed of sale recited a lump sum price (P11,000.00) for both lots. The Court of Appeals had found as a fact that the two parcels were identified by conspicuous boundaries, specifically a long and continuous dike separating them from the rest of the property. Based on these factual findings, which could not be questioned at this stage, the sale was of a definite and identified tract, making Article 1542 of the Civil Code applicable. The Court cited persuasive Spanish jurisprudence interpreting the equivalent article, holding that when a sale is made for a lump sum and not at a rate per unit, the price does not increase or decrease even if the area is greater or less than stated, provided the property is identified by boundaries. The Court also ruled that the Land Registration Act’s procedural requirements for subdivision plans do not govern the rights between vendor and vendee, which remain controlled by the Civil Code.