G.R. No. 47519 ; June 10, 1941
Emiliano E. Garcia, as guardian of Elisa, Maria, Anita, Pastor, Gabino, Jose and Pacita, all surnamed Garcia, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Paz E. Velasco (alias Paz Velasco), defendant-appellee.

FACTS

On July 1, 1929, Florentino Garcia, as the duly appointed guardian of the minor Garcia children, leased a fish pond located in Paombong, Bulacan, to defendant Paz E. Velasco for ten years at an annual rental of P750. On May 22, 1931, pursuant to court authority, Florentino Garcia sold the same fish pond to the defendant for a lump sum of P14,000. The deed of sale described the property as having “una extension superficial de once (11) hectareas, treinta y ocho (38) areas, y setenta y siete (77) centiareas, poco mas o menos.” Subsequently, Emiliano E. Garcia was substituted as guardian. On October 29, 1935, the court ordered him to institute an action to recover the purchase price from the defendant. He filed the complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila, where he resided. The defendant specially appeared to object to the court’s jurisdiction over her person and, after this was overruled, filed a demurrer reasserting the jurisdictional objection and adding lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. After the demurrer was overruled, she filed an answer renewing her jurisdictional objections, pleading the special defense of payment, and setting up a counterclaim. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the action on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and that the amount claimed had been paid. The guardian appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction over the personal action for recovery of the purchase price.
2. Whether the defendant was entitled to an equitable reduction in the purchase price due to a deficiency in the area of the fish pond sold.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in sustaining the defendant’s jurisdictional objection. The action was for the recovery of the purchase price, a personal action, and not an action against “executors, administrators and guardians touching the performance of their official duties.” Under the rules of venue for personal actions, the plaintiff could file the complaint in any province where he resided. Since the plaintiff guardian alleged residence in Manila, which was not directly denied in the answer, filing the complaint there was a valid exercise of his right under the law. The fact that he was appointed guardian by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan did not preclude his residence from being in Manila.
2. On Payment and Price Reduction: The Supreme Court found no ground to disturb the trial court’s findings on the factual issue of payment. However, on the legal question of price reduction, the Court reversed the trial court’s decision to credit the defendant P3,824 for a deficiency in area. The sale was for a lump sum, as stated in the deed, and not at a specified price per unit of measure. Under Article 1471 of the Civil Code, in such a sale, there shall be no increase or decrease in price even if the area is more or less than stated. While equitable relief may be granted in cases of very great deficiency from which gross mistake may be inferred, such relief was not warranted here. The defendant had been a lessee in possession and control of the fish pond for two years prior to the purchase and could therefore be presumed to have acquired a good estimate of its value and area. Her purchase was premised on that knowledge, and she intended to take the risk regarding the quantity. The area mentioned in the contract was for description only.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the trial court is reversed. Defendant Paz E. Velasco is ordered to pay plaintiff Emiliano E. Garcia, as guardian, the sum of P3,824, with costs against the defendant.