GR 196444; (February, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 196444 February 15, 2017
DASMARIĂ‘AS T. ARCAINA and MAGNANI T. BANTA, Petitioners vs. NOEMI L. INGRAM, represented by MA. NENETTE L. ARCHINUE, Respondent
FACTS
Respondent Noemi Ingram entered into a contract of sale with petitioner Magnani Banta, as attorney-in-fact for co-petitioner Dasmariñas Arcaina, for Lot No. 3230. The Deeds of Absolute Sale described the property with specific boundaries and stated an area of “6,200 sq. meters more or less,” which was consistent with the tax declaration. The total contract price was ₱1,860,000.00, and Ingram made installment payments totaling ₱1,715,000.00. After the sale, Ingram caused a survey which revealed the actual area was 12,000 sq. m. Banta then insisted the 5,800 sq. m. difference remained unsold, while Ingram claimed ownership of the entire lot by virtue of the sale, prompting her to file a recovery case.
The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) dismissed Ingram’s complaint via demurrer to evidence, finding her evidence insufficient. It ruled that since the deeds specified an area and price, and Ingram did not pay for the excess area, she could not claim it under Article 1540 of the Civil Code. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed, declaring Ingram the owner of the entire 12,000 sq. m. lot, ordering her to pay the ₱145,000.00 balance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, prompting petitioners’ appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the contract of sale covered the entire Lot No. 3230 with an area of 12,000 sq. m., or only the 6,200 sq. m. as stated in the deeds.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The sale was one of a specific and determinate object—the entire Lot No. 3230—not a sale by unit of measure. The legal logic hinges on the principle that when a sale involves a specific parcel of land described by its boundaries, the area stated is considered merely descriptive, not determinative of the extent of the sale. The Deeds of Absolute Sale clearly identified the property by its lot number, location, and precise boundaries. The phrase “more or less” qualifying the 6,200 sq. m. area indicates that the stated measurement was not an exact warranty. The contract price was a lump sum, not computed at a rate per square meter, which further confirms it was a sale of the entire identified parcel. Therefore, ownership transferred over the whole lot as bounded, irrespective of the variance between the stated and actual area. Ingram’s obligation was to pay the full contract price, which she substantially did, with only a balance remaining. The Court ordered her to pay the outstanding ₱145,000.00, with legal interest from finality of judgment until full payment.