G.R. No. 29449 , December 29, 1928
LEODEGARIO AZARRAGA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIA GAY, defendant-appellant.

Ponente: VILLAMOR, J.

FACTS

Leodegario Azarraga (vendor) sold two parcels of land to Maria Gay (vendee) for a lump sum of P47,000, payable in installments as stipulated in a public document (Exhibit A). Gay paid the initial P5,000 and later P20,000 upon delivery of the Torrens title for the first parcel. When Azarraga delivered the Torrens title for the second parcel, Gay failed to pay the agreed P10,000 and the final P12,000 due one year later. Azarraga filed a complaint to recover P22,000 with interest.

In defense, Gay alleged that Azarraga misrepresented the area of the second parcel as 98 hectares when it was only about 60 hectares, entitling her to a proportional price reduction. She also claimed additional payments of P4,000 and that Azarraga refused to accept the reduced amount. By way of cross-complaint, she sought damages for the allegedly malicious filing of the complaint.

The trial court found no fraud, ruled that the sale was for a lump sum where area was not material to the agreement, and ordered Gay to pay the balance with interest, dismissing her cross-complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the vendee (Gay) is entitled to a reduction of the purchase price due to a shortage in the area of the land sold.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The contract of sale was for a lump sum (precio alzado), not by unit of measure. Under Article 1471 of the Civil Code, in a lump sum sale, the vendor is bound to deliver all the land within the stated boundaries, and the purchaser is not entitled to a price reduction for a deficiency in area, provided the vendor delivers everything within those boundaries. Since Azarraga delivered the entire second parcel as bounded, Gay had no right to a price reduction. The Court found no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by Azarraga, noting that Gay had prior access to the title document (Exhibit 4) showing the area was approximately 70 hectares and had inspected the property herself. Her failure to verify the area was at her own risk. The claim for damages was correctly dismissed, and the award of interest from the dates of default was proper.