GR L 1724; (October, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1724; October 12, 1950
NIEVES VDA. DE GONZALES DE MONDRAGON, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ROMAN SANTOS, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiff Nieves Vda. de Gonzales de Mondragon, along with some of her children, sold their rights and interests in Hacienda Esperanza to defendant Roman Santos through a deed of sale (Exhibit A) dated August 5, 1941, for a lump sum of P943,500. The plaintiff’s share was believed to be 1,023 hectares based on a prior subdivision plan. A subsequent survey revealed her actual share was 1,091.24 hectares. Plaintiff sought rescission of the sale or payment for the excess area, alleging the sale was based on a price per hectare (P450/hectare) and that she signed the deed while ill and under a mistake. She also filed a third amended complaint claiming defendant took possession of an additional lot (No. 4397-A) and barrio lots and roads not included in the sale.
ISSUE
1. Whether the sale was for a lump sum or at a price per unit of measure, entitling plaintiff to relief for the excess area.
2. Whether lot No. 4397-A and the barrio lots and roads were included in the sale.
RULING
1. The sale was for a lump sum. The deed of sale explicitly conveyed all the vendors’ rights and interests in Hacienda Esperanza for a total price without specifying a rate per hectare. Under Article 1471 of the Old Civil Code, in a sale of immovable property for a lump sum, there shall be no increase or decrease in price even if the area is greater or less than stated. The plaintiff’s claim of mistake was unsubstantiated; she was assisted by her intelligent and experienced children during negotiations, and the excess area was within ordinary contingency risks for such a transaction.
2. Lot No. 4397-A and the barrio lots and roads were included in the sale. The deed conveyed “todo su derecho, interes y participacion en la Hacienda Esperanza” (all their right, interest, and participation in Hacienda Esperanza), which encompassed all her interests in the hacienda, including those lots. The plaintiff’s long delay in raising this claim weakened its merit. The trial court’s dismissal of the complaint was affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion:* Justice Bengzon argued that the plaintiff proved the agreement was based on a price per hectare and that both parties believed the area was 1,023 hectares, thus Article 1470 (allowing rescission or price reduction for substantial deficiency) should apply.
AI Generated by Armztrong.