G.R. No. 168220. August 31, 2005 SPS. RUDY PARAGAS and CORAZON B. PARAGAS vs. RS. O!

DO"#NADOR BA$ACANO, na%&'() DO"#N#C, RODO$!O, NAN*++* and CYR#C, a'' su,na%&d BA$ACANO, ,&-,&s&nt&d .( NAN*++* BA$ACANO and A$!R*DO BA$ACANO, C #CO/NAZAR#O, J.) !a0ts) Gregorio Balacano owned two parcels of land. Prior to his death, he sold the lands to Paragas. The sale appeared in a deed of absolute sale notarized by Atty. De Guzman. Subse uently, Paragas sold one of the lands to !atalino. The respondents filed an action for annulment of sales. They are contending that Balacano was seriously ill, in fact dying at that time, which "itiated his consent to the disposal of the property. #n the other hand, Paragas alleged that they agreed on the sale of the $ots and that the e%ecution of the Deed of Sale was merely a confirmation of the said agreement. #ssu&) &hether or not the sale of the parcels of land is null and "oid. &'d) 'es. (t is not disputed that when Gregorio signed the deed of sale, Gregorio was seriously ill, as he in fact died a wee) after the deed*s signing. Gi"en that Gregorio purportedly e%ecuted a deed during the last stages of his battle against his disease, we seriously doubt whether Gregorio could ha"e read, or fully understood, the contents of the documents he signed or of the conse uences of his act. (n the case at bar, the Deed of Sale was allegedly signed by Gregorio on his death bed in the hospital. Gregorio was an octogenarian at the time of the alleged e%ecution of the contract and suffering from li"er cirrhosis at that + circumstances which raise gra"e doubts on his physical and mental capacity to freely consent to the contract.

registered in the name of their aunt, Sulpicia 0entura. 1n)nown to them, Sulpicia e%ecuted a deed of sale o"er the property in fa"or of respondents* father, 2oseph Goyan)o. (n turn, their father e%ecuted on #ctober -3, -..4, a deed of sale o"er the property in fa"or of his common5law5wife, 6aria B. !hing. Transfer !ertificate of Title 7T!T8 9o. -4:;<= was thus issued in petitioner*s name. After their father*s death on 6arch --, -../, respondents disco"ered that ownership of the property had already been transferred in the name of petitioner. ,espondents thereupon had the purported signature of their father in the deed of sale "erified by the Philippine 9ational Police !rime $aboratory which found the same to be a forgery. ,espondents thus filed with the ,egional Trial !ourt of !ebu !ity a complaint for reco"ery of property and damages against petitioner, praying for the nullification of the deed of sale and of T!T 9o. -4:;<= and the issuance of a new one in fa"or of their father Goyan)o. #SSU*) &hether or not the deed of sale is null and "oid. *$D) 'es. Article -;.< of the !i"il !ode pro"ides that the husband and wife cannot sell property to each other. The proscription against sale of property between spouses applies e"en to common law relationships. The contract of sale was null and "oid for being contrary to morals and public policy. The sale was sub"ersi"e of the stability of the family, a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects. Petitioner*s argument that a trust relationship was created between Goyan)o as trustee and her as beneficiary as pro"ided in Articles -;;: and -;=< of the !i"il !ode does not persuade. >or petitioner*s testimony that it was she who pro"ided the purchase price is uncorroborated. That she may ha"e been considered the breadwinner of the family and that there was proof that she earned a li"ing do not conclusi"ely clinch her claim. (n the present case, petitioner cannot be said to ha"e been put to undue disad"antage and to ha"e been denied the chance to refute all the allegations against her. >or the nullification of the sale is anchored on its illegality per se, it being "iolati"e of the abo"e5cited Articles -4=3, -;<. and -;.< of the !i"il !ode.

GR No. 165812, No3&%.&, 10, 2006 "AR#A B. C #NG, -&t4t4on&,, 3s. 5OS*P ,&s-ond&nts. CARP#O "ORA$*S, J.) !AC+S)

C. GOYAN6O, 5R., *+ A$,

,espondents claim that in -./-, their parents ac uired a //- s uare meter property but that as they were !hinese citizens at the time, the property was

a,t 1721/ -8(s40a' d&'43&,( a'9,&do 3s .o,,as g, no 177225, :un& 11, 2003 0a,-4o, :. facts? sps godofredo and carmen Alfredo ownerd a land under homestead patent no "5 /.-./ which was mortgaged for P@,<<< with the DBP. To pay the debt, sps. Alfredo sold the said property to Sps. Borras for P-=,<<<. Sps. Alfredo then deli"ered the ownerAs duplicate copy with the document of cancellation of mortgage, official receipts of realty ta% payments and te% declaration in the name of godofredo to the Sps. Borras after the latter paid the balance of the purchase price on the land. After Sps Borras too) possession of the land, they disco"ered that sps alfredo had re5sold portions of the land to se"eral persons. issue? won the ownership of the subBect land has already been transferred to the sps borras held? The contract of sale between the spouses Godofredo and !armen and the spouses Armando and Adelia was a perfected contract. The contract of sale of the SubBect $and has also been consummated because the sellers and buyers ha"e performed their respecti"e obligations under the contract. (n a contract of sale, the seller obligates himself to transfer the ownership of the determinate thing sold, and to deli"er the same, to the buyer who obligates himself to pay a price certain to the seller.C-4D (n the instant case, Godofredo and !armen deli"ered the SubBect $and to Armando and Adelia, placing the latter in actual physical possession of the SubBect $and. This physical deli"ery of the SubBect $and also constituted a transfer of ownership of the SubBect $and to Armando and Adelia. C-;D #wnership of the thing sold is transferred to the "endee upon its actual or constructi"e deli"ery.C-=D Godofredo and !armen also turned o"er to Armando and Adelia the documents of ownership to the SubBect $and, namely the owner*s duplicate copy of #!T 9o. 3:;, the ta% declaration and the receipts of realty ta% payments.

G.R. No. $/12372 August 3, 1218 A. A. ADD#SON, plaintiff5appellant, "s. "ARC#ANA !*$#; and BA$B#NO +#OCO, defendants5appellees. !#S *R, J.) >acts? Plaintiff sold four parcels of land to defendant. The defendant paid Php4,<<< on account of the purchase price and promised to pay the balance in instalments. (n the contract it was stipulated that the purchaser shall deli"er to the "endor 3=E of the "alue of the products to be obtained from the land and upon failure to comply with their obligations the contract will be rescinded. Addison demanded the payment of the instalment while defendant argued that the land the plaintiff failed to deli"er the lands despite the demands he made. (ssue? &hether or not there was deli"ery of the subBect matter of sale Feld? 9o. &hen the lands were sold it was not registered in accordance with the Torrens title. (n contract of sale there is deli"ery when the "endor has control o"er the thing sold. (t is not enough to confer upon the buyer the ownership and right to possession.

G.R. No. 188661. A-,4' 11, 2012 *S+*$#+A <#$$A"AR vs. BA$B#NO "ANGAO#$ R*Y*S, 5.) !a0ts) 0illamar, owner of a parcel of land, entered into a agreement with 6angaoil. (n their agreement, it was stipulated that 6angaoil will pay a downpayment of Php -:=,<<< for payment of the loan secured by the certificate of title co"ering the land in fa"or of the ,ural Ban) of !auayan and mortgages in fa"or of ,omeo $acaden and >lorante Parangan. After e%ecuting a deed of sale, 0illamor informed 6angaoil that he was bac)ing out of the agreement for the subBect land was not yet fully cleared from encumbrances.

6angaoil filed an action to rescind the contract and reco"ery of the downpayment. Fe alleged that 0illamor had already redeemed the title but refused to deli"er it to him. . (n the response of the petitioner, she a"erred that she had already complied with the obligations and caused the release of the mortgaged land and the deli"ery of the !ertificate of Title to a certain Atty. Pedro !. Antonio #ssu&) &hether or not the failure of the petitioner to deli"er to the respondent both the physical possession of the subBect property and the certificate of title co"ering the same amount to a substantial breach of the formerAs obligations to the latter constituting a "alid cause to rescind the agreement and deed of sale entered into by the parties. &'d) 'es. (n the case at bar, the ,T! and the !A found that the petitioner failed to deli"er to the respondent the possession of the subBect property due to the continued presence and occupation of Parangan and $acaden. The e%ecution of a public instrument amounts to a constructi"e deli"ery of the thing subBect of a contract of sale. Fowe"er, e%ceptions e%ist, among which is when mere presumpti"e and not conclusi"e deli"ery is created in cases where the buyer fails to ta)e material possession of the subBect of sale. A person who does not ha"e actual possession of the thing sold cannot transfer constructi"e possession by the e%ecution and deli"ery of a public instrument. G.R. No. 25231 August 16, 1221 !OR+UN* +OBACCO CORPORA+#ON, -&t4t4on&,, 3s. NA+#ONA$ $ABOR R*$A+#ONS CO""#SS#ON = *DGARDO D* $A CRUZ, *+ A$ ,&s-ond&nts. GANCAYCO, J.: !AC+S) Pri"ate respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against their employer, >ortune Tobacco !orporation, before the 9ational $abor ,elations !ommission 79$,!8 praying that they be reinstated in the company with full bac)wages and without loss of seniority rights. The $abor Arbiter and 9$,! ruled in fa"or of pri"ate respondents. The amount stated in the computation is P4,:/4,;/;.:.. The said amount was apparently reached by rec)oning the computation period to start from #ctober =, -.:= up to August -..<. The research unit also stated that it too) into account this period because the date of the actual sale of the plant is not ascertained. Petitioner maintained that it had already sold its redrying plant as of #ctober -@, -.:=.

#SSU*) &hether or not there had an actual sale of the plant and facilities as of #ctober -@, -.:=. *$D) 9o. There is no actual sale of the plant and its facilities up to the present time. &hile the Deed of !onditional Sale was e%ecuted on #ctober -@, -.:=, it does not necessarily follow that the plant and its facilities were, ipso facto, sold on that "ery day. A careful e"aluation of the stipulations of the said agreement will readily show that the petitioner has no intention to transfer ownership o"er the plant and its facilities to the "endee unless there is full payment of the purchase price on the part of the latter. (n fact, it is clearly stipulated that ownership o"er the plant and its facilities will be transferred to the "endee by way of Ga final and absolute deed of saleG only after such full payment, inclusi"e of interest charges. The terms and conditions of the agreement spea) for themsel"es. At any rate, e"en accepting that the plant and its facilities ha"e been sold on a conditional basis, there can be no actual sale thereof unless the plant and its facilities are unconditionally con"eyed to the PT,>!( by "irtue of Ga final or absolute deed of saleG in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in the agreement between the parties. C8ua 3 CA GR No. 112255 A-,4' 2, 2003 Ca,-4o, 5. >acts? 0aldes5!hoy is the owner of the subBect matter, when she ad"ertised the property for sale. !hua responded to the ad"ertisement, and met up with 0aldes5!hoy. They agreed for the purchase price of P-<,:<<,<<<, to be paid on 2uly -=, -.:.. This was e"idenced by an earnest money for P-<<,<<<, which was put on a receipt, stating that the money will be forfeited upon failure to pay on the date stipulated. #n 2uly -4, 0aldes5!hoy e%ecuted two deeds of absolute sale, first, pertaining to the house and lot, "alued at P:,<<<,<<<, and second, pertaining to the mo"able properties therein. The ne%t day, !hua issued a chec) worth P;:=,<<< for the purpose of paying the capital gains ta%. The "alue was deducted from the balance, with an outstanding "alue of P-<,3.=,<<< 7additional P:<,<<< for the documentary stamp ta%8. !hua also showed a chec)

worth P-<,3-=,<<< to 0aldes5!hoyH howe"er, he demanded that the T!T should first be transferred to his name before paying the chec). #ut of anger, 0aldes5!hoy tore the deed of absolute sale. #n the rec)oning date, 0aldes5!hoy tried to ma)e a compromise with !hua, but there was no response. Two days later, !hua filed an action for specific performance, which the trial court dismissed. A wee) later, he filed another action for specific performance, where the court ruled in his fa"or. #n appeal, !A re"ersed. (SS1I? -. &hether the agreement was a contract of sale or contract to sell 3. &hether registration is needed to transfer ownership ,1$(9G? (t is a contract to sell. >irst, when the agreement was made, the earnest money is forfeited in fa"or of 0aldes5!hoy who may then sell the land to other interested parties. This is the nature of reser"ing the ownership of the property, subBect to the full payment of the purchase price. Second, absent of a formal deed of con"eyance of the property in fa"or of the buyer shows that there was no intention to transfer ownership immediately. The non5fulfillment of the suspensi"e condition, which is payment of the full purchase price pre"ents the obligation to sell from arising, where the owner retains the ownership o"er the property. Art -;:3 spea)s of earnest money as an e"idence of a perfected contract of sale. Fowe"er, in this case, the earnest money was paid in part consideration of a contract to sell, and therefore, art -;:3 does not apply. Deli"ery is effected upon e%ecution of the sale in a public instrument. Fowe"er, registration is not needed in order to complete the deed of sale. Deli"ery is what transfers ownership, and not registration in the ,egistry of Property. ,egistration is only necessary to bind third personsH it is not a mode of ac uiring ownership.

A deed of sale co"ering the Antipolo property was e%ecuted between ,ufina Iniceo and 6aria Iniceo as "endors and respondent as "endee. The Iniceos sold the Antipolo property to respondent for P3=<,<<<. A certain !armen Aldana deli"ered the owner*s duplicate copy of the original certificate of title 7#!T8 to respondent. #ssu&) &hether or not there is deli"ery of the obBect of sale to consummate the contract Ru'4ng) 'es. The e%ecution of the notarized deed of sale and the deli"ery of the owner*s duplicate copy of #!T 9o. =4= to respondent is tantamount to a constructi"e deli"ery of the obBect of the sale. The contract between the Iniceo heirs and respondent e%ecuted was a perfected contract of sale because of the concurrence of all the essential elements. The contract of sale has also been consummated because the "endors and "endee ha"e performed their respecti"e obligations under the contract.

&4,s o9 *s0an'a, 3s. Cou,t o9 A--&a's G.R. No. 112111 !a0ts) Spouses 9ombre and !ari5an died without a child. 9ombre*s heirs include his nephews and grandnephews. Two parcels of land formed part of the estate of 9ombre and !ari5an. The Pri"ate ,espondents, heirs of !ari5an e%ecuted a Deed of Sale in fa"or of petitioners Iscanlar and Folgado. Petitioners paid P=<,<<<.<< as a form of down payment, but was unable to pay the remaining balance 7paid only -3 installments8. Being former lessees, petitioners continued in possession of the said lots, and continued to pay rent. Pri"ate ,espondent later sold the said lots to the !hua spouses. Pri"ate ,espondent then filed an action for cancellation of sale against petitioners, for failure to pay the balance. Petitioners howe"er, sold their rights and interests o"er the said lots to 2ayme, and turned o"er possession. The ,egional Trial !ourt of Fimamaylan which too) cognizance of Special Proceeding ruled that the Sale to petitioners was nullified since all the properties of the estate had been transferred and titled to in the name of the !hua spouses. #ssu&) &hether or not the sale was a contract to sell and therefore, pri"ate respondents may rescind the the contract the moment the buyer fails to pay.

64ngs P,o-&,t4&s Co,-. 3s. Canuto Ga'4do !a0ts) The heirs of Domingo Iniceo were awarded with a homestead patent consisting of ; parcels of land located in Antipolo, ,izal.

Ru'4ng) The sale of rights, interests and participation as to -J3 portion pro indiviso of the two subBect lots is a contract of sale for the following reasons? First, pri"ate respondents as sellers did not reser"e unto themsel"es the ownership of the property until full payment of the unpaid balance of P33=,<<<.<<. Second, there is no stipulation gi"ing the sellers the right to unilaterally rescind the contract the moment the buyer fails to pay within the fi%ed period. Prior to the sale, petitioners were in possession of the subBect property as lessees. 1pon sale to them of the rights, interests and participation as to the -J3 portion pro indiviso, they remained in possession, not in concept of lessees anymore but as owners now through symbolic deli"ery )nown as traditio brevi manu. 1nder Article -;@@ of the !i"il !ode, the ownership of the thing sold is ac uired by the "endee upon actual or constructi"e deli"ery thereof. A%4go 3s. +&3&s 26 P84' 252 No3&%.&, 22, 1257 Bautista Angelo, J.: >acts? Spouses 6acario Amigo and Anacleto !agalitan e%ecuted in fa"or of their son, 6arcelino Amigo, a power of attorney. 6arcelino, in his capacity, as attorney5in5 fact, sold the land with the right to repurchase in fa"or of Serafin Te"er, herein respondent. (t was stipulated that the "endor would remain in possession of the land and would pay rent as lessees. >urther, in case on default in rental payments, the lease shall automatically terminate and the right of ownership of "endee shall become absolute. 6eanwhile, Spouses Amigo and !agalitan donated to their sons, Petitioners 2ustino Amigo and Pastor Amigo, se"eral parcels of land including their right to repurchase the land in litigation. The "endor5lessee failed to pay rentalsH as a result, respondent e%ecuted affida"it of consolidation of ownership. The petitioners then e%ercised their right to repurchase but the respondent refused on the ground that ownership was already consolidated unto them. (ssue?

&hether or not the sale is "oid because the right to repurchase is not within the power granted to 6arcelino Amigo Feld? 9o. A cursory reading thereof would at once re"eal that the power granted to the agent is so broad that it practically co"ers the celebration of any contract and the conclusion of any co"enant or stipulation. &hen the power of attorney says that the agent can enter into any contract concerning the land, or can sell the land under any term or condition and co"enant he may thin) fit, it undoubtedly means that he can act in the same manner and with the same breath and latitude as the principal could concerning the property. >urther, while the lease co"enant may be onerous or may wor) hardship on the "endor because of its clause pro"iding for the automatic termination of the period of redemption, howe"er, the same is not contrary to law, morals, or public order, which may ser"e as basis for its nullification. ,ather than obno%ious are oppressi"e , it is a clause common in a sale with pacto de retro, and as such it recei"ed the sanction of our courts. Santos 3s CA G,. 117286, G,.115011, G,.181715 5u'( 1, 2002 Na08u,a, 5) >acts? These cases was consolidated because of the failure of failure of >in"est Securities !o., (nc. 7>in"est8 to meet its obligations to its clients and the Philippine Stoc) I%change 7PSI8, allegedly caused by mishandling of >in"est*s funds and property by its officers. #n Gr. -@;.:/ and Gr -=@<@-, >in"est is a stoc) bro)erage company which e%isted under the Philippine $aws. (t is a member of the PSI with one membership seat pledged to the latter Santos is its president and a nominee in PSI. >in"est incurred liabilities for fines and penalties for non5payment of its clearing houses obligations. PSI also recei"ed reports that >in"est was not meeting its obligations to its clients.D !onse uently, PSI indefinitely suspended >in"est from trading. The Securities and I%change !ommission 7SI!8 also suspended its license as bro)er. #n Gr -:-;-=, >in"est sold the shares of stoc) of Piltel !orporation to T6I( and ,oland Garcia. (n particular, T6I( purchased /4,@3< shares forP-,-33,:/4.-4 while Garcia purchased ;<,<<< shares for P=<<,<@-.3=. >in"est failed to deli"er to them the stoc) certificates despite se"eral demands. T6I( and ,oland Garcia also claimed that they were entitled to the di"idends declared by Piltel from the time they purchased the shares of stoc).

(ssue? TFI F#9#,AB$I !#1,T #> APPIA$S G,A0I$' I,,ID (9 I92#(9(9G PIT(T(#9I, PSI >,#6 I9>#,!(9G A9D IKI,!(S(9G (TS ,(GFT 19DI, TFI P$IDGI AG,II6I9T. TFI F#9#,AB$I !#1,T #> APPIA$S G,A0I$' I,,ID (9 A>>(,6(9G TFI DI!(S(#9 #> TFI T,(A$ !#1,T &F(!F #,DI,ID TFI ,IT1,9 #> TFI 0A$1I #> TFI 19DI$(0I,ID SFA,IS #> ST#!L AT TFI T(6I #> TFI P1,!FASI, &F(!F A&A,D #> DA6AGIS FA0I 9#T BII9 ISTAB$(SFID B' I0(DI9!I. Feld? The Pledge Agreement between PSI and >in"est was entered into pursuant to PSI*s by5laws which re uires a member to pledge its membership seat to secure the payment of all debts or obligations due PSI and its other members arising out of, or in connection with, the present or future contracts of such member with PSI and its members. (n case of default in the payment of obligations, the Pledge Agreement e%plicitly grants PSI the right to sell >in"est*s pledged seat,. Article 3--3 of the !i"il !ode also gi"es the pledgee the same right to sell the thing pledged in case the pledgor*s obligation is not satisfied in due time >or a "alid transfer of stoc)s, the re uirements are as follows? 7a8 there must be deli"ery of the stoc) certificateH 7b8 the certificate must be endorsed by the owner or his attorney5in5fact or other persons legally authorized to ma)e the transferH and 7c8 to be "alid against third parties, the transfer must be recorded in the boo)s of the corporation. !learly, >in"est*s failure to deli"er the stoc) certificates representing the shares of stoc) purchased by T6I( and Garcia amounted to a substantial breach of their contract which ga"e rise to a right to rescind the sale. To rescind is to declare a contract "oid at its inception and to put an end to it as though it ne"er was. ,escission does not merely terminate the contract and release the parties from further obligations to each other, but abrogates it from the beginning and restores the parties to their relati"e positions as if no contract has been made.6utual restitution entails the return of the benefits that each party may ha"e recei"ed as a result of the contract. (n this case, it is the purchase price that >in"est must return. The amount paid was sufficiently pro"en by the buy confirmation receipts, "ouchers, and officialJpro"isional receipts that respondents presented in e"idence. (n addition, the

law awards damages to the inBured party, which could be in the form of interest on the price paid, as the trial court did in this case. Rudo'9 $4&t>, #n0 3s CA &t. a'., GR No. 122763 +4nga, 5., >A!TS? Agapito Buriol, owner of a parcel of unregistered land in San 0icente, Palawan, entered into a lease agreement with Pri"ate respondents who were all (talian citizens in"ol"ing - hectare of land for 3= years renewable for another 3= years. Buriol sold the = hectares of land for 4<) to the petitioner. Fowe"er, petitioner later disco"ered that Buriol owned only ; hectares, - hectare co"ered by a lease and only 4 hectares of land were actually deli"ered, so he decided to file a case for Annulment of $ease with reco"ery of Possession with (nBuction and Damages and the respondents filed a counterclaim for damages. ,T! dismissed both claims for damages. And the !A affirmed the decision of the ,T! with modification that $ietz is ordered to pay respondents Turatello and Sani moral and e%emplary damages, atty*s fee and cost of litigation. (SS1I? whether or not Article -=;3 and -=4. of the 9ew ci"il !ode are applicable in the case at bar. FI$D? Article -=4. go"erns a sale of immo"able by the unit, that is, at a stated rate per unit area. (n a unit price contract, the statement of area of immo"able is not conclusi"e and the price may be reduced or increased depending on the area actually deli"ered. (f the "endor deli"ers less than the area agreed upon, the "endee may oblige the "endor to deli"er all that may be stated in the contract or demand for the proportionate reduction of the purchase price if deli"ery is not possible. (f the "endor deli"ers more than the area stated in the contract, the "endee has the option to accept only the amount agreed upon or to accept the whole area, pro"ided he pays for the additional area at the contract rate. As correctly noted by the trial court and the !ourt of Appeals, the sale between petitioner and respondent Buriol in"ol"ing the latter*s property is one made for a lump sum. The Deed of Absolute Sale shows that the parties agreed on the purchase price on a predetermined area of fi"e hectares within the specified boundaries and not based on a particular rate per area. (n accordance with Article -=;3, there shall be no reduction in the purchase price e"en if the area deli"ered to petitioner is less than that stated in the contract. (n the instant case, the area within the boundaries as stated in the contract shall control o"er the area agreed upon in the contract.

A,t 1532 to 1570 C&.u ?4n'and d&3. Co,- 3s Ong S4ao GR NO 113215, "a( 21, 2002 Puno, C.5. >acts?

AD*$A#DA ARBASA, respondents. ua D*C#S#ON PARDO, J.) >acts? Spouses Dominador and Adelaida ,oble purchased from >idela ,oble an unregistered parcel of land in $eyte. (n the deed of sale the property was 3;< s uare meter but due to the diligent efforts in reclaiming the portion of the sea with stones, sand and gra"el it increase to ::; s uare meters. ,espondents ha"e been in actual, open, peaceful and continuous possession of the entire land since -.@/. Adelaida tolerated >idela*s stay in the house. Together with >idela li"ing with them were the petitioners who were daughters of their deceased brotherAfter >idela*s death petitioners claimed ownership of the house and portion of the land. ,espondent wanted to ha"e the petitioners "acated the land. (ssue? &hether or not the respondents were the lawful owner of the /;; s uare meters more 7::353;< s uare meters8 of the parcel of landM Feld? 9o. They were not the lawful owners of the subBect portion of the land. At the time of sale only the land e%isting 3;< s uare meters was the subBect matter of the sale. There was a uestion regarding the true nature of the land for it had features of foreshore land. Fowe"er due to the dearth of e"idence the !ourt did not arri"e with the conclusi"e classification of the land in"ol"ed.

,espondent #ng Siao Fua bought two condominium units designated as 1nit 9os. 3;<= and 3;</, as well as four par)ing slots from the petitioner. The area per condominium unit as indicated in petitioner*s price list is -== s uare meters and the price per s uare meter is P33,4@:..=. The price for the par)ing slot is P3;<,<<< each. After the purchase price has been fully paid, the Deed of Absolute Sale for the two condominium units was issued upon the ,espondent. 1pon e%amination of the deed of absolute sale, respondent was distressed to find that the stated floor area is only -3@ s uare meters contrary to the area indicated in the price list which was -== s uare meters. ,espondent caused a "erification sur"ey of the said condominium units and disco"ered that the actual area is only --< s uare meters per unit. ,espondent demanded from petitioner to refund the amount of P3,<-;,-<=.=< representing e%cess payments for the difference in the area. (ssue? &hether the sale in the case at bar is one made with a statement of its area or at the rate of a certain price for a unit of measure and not for a lump sum Feld? (n the case at bar, it is undisputed by the parties that the purchase price of the subBect properties was computed based on the price list prepared by petitioner, orP33,4@:..= per s uare meter. !learly, the parties agreed on a sale at a rate of a certain price per unit of measure and not one for a lump sum. Fence, it is Article -=4. and not Article -=;3 which is the applicable law. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to the relief afforded to him under Article -=4., that is, either a proportional reduction of the price or the rescission of the contract, at his option. ,espondent chose the former remedy since he prayed in his !omplaint for the refund of the amount of P3,<-;,-<=.=< representing the proportional reduction of the price paid to petitioner.

G.R. No. 15311. S&-t&%.&, 12, 2008 DO$OR*S SA$#NAS 3s SPS. B#*N<*N#DO S. !AUS+#NO and #$U"#NADA G. !AUS+#NO CARP#O "ORA$*S, 5.) !a0ts? >austino purchased from his co5heirs, including Salinas, their shares to a parcel of land in the name of their grandmother. >austino then allowed Salinas to use a portion of the land with an agreement that the latter will "acate the land should >austino needs it. &hen >austino as)ed Salinas to "acate the property, Salinas refused and alleged that She owns the portion of the land and what was sold to >austino was Bust a portion of the land and the whole land.

@G.R. No. 130101. 5u'( 31, 2001A <*RON#CA ROB$*, $#$#B*+ R. POR+UGA$#ZA, and BOBBY POR+UGA$#ZA, petitioners, vs. DO"#NADOR ARBASA and

#ssu&? &hether or not ,espondents are entitled to the whole parcel of and. &'d? 9o. (ndeed, in a contract of sale of land in a mass, the specific boundaries stated in the contract must control o"er any statement with respect to the area contained within its boundaries. Thus, it is the boundaries indicated in a deed of absolute sale, and not the area in s . m. mentioned therein + 4<<.4@= s . m. in the Deed of Sale in respondents* fa"or + that control in the determination of which portion of the land a "endee ac uires.

There are instances in which e uitable relief may be granted to the purchaser li)e where a gross mista)e may be inferred. But, in the instant case, we are satisfied that, although the shortage amounts to practically one5fourth of the total area, the purchaser clearly intended to ta)e the ris) of uantity, and that the area has been mentioned in the contract merely for the purpose of description. >rom the circumstance that the defendant, before her purchase of the fish pond, had been in possession and control thereof for two years as a lessee, she can rightly be presumed to ha"e ac uired a good estimate of its "alue and area, and her subse uent purchase thereof must ha"e been premised on the )nowledge of such "alue and area. D&' P,ado 3s. Ca.a''&,o GR No. 178225 617 SCRA 102

*"#$#ANO *. GARC#A, as gua,d4an o9 *'4sa, "a,4a, An4ta, Pasto,, Ga.4no, 5os& and Pa04ta, a'' su,na%&d Ga,0Ba, -'a4nt499 and a--&''ant, 3s. PAZ *. <*$ASCO Ca'4as PAZ <*$ASCOD, d&9&ndant and a--&''&&. @GR No. 71512. 5un& 10, 1271A 6#,A9, 2.? !AC+S) #n 2uly -, -.3., >lorentino Garcia, as duly appointed guardian of the Garcia siblings who are all minors, leased to defendant Paz I. 0elasco, for a period of ten years at an annual rental of P@=<, a fish pond belonging to said minors, situated in Paombong, Bulacan. Pursuant to authority granted him by the court, he sold the fish pond to said defendant for a lump sum of P-;,<<<. #n #ctober 3., -.4=, Imiliano I. Garcia, who was appointed guardian in substitution of >lorentino Garcia, was ordered by the court to institute an appropriate action for the reco"ery from the defendant of the purchase price of the fish pond. #SSU*) &hether upon a sale of real property in gross and for a lump sum, the purchaser may be entitled to an e uitable reduction in the price in proportion to what is lac)ing in the area as designated in the contract. *$D) 9o. Article -;@- of the !i"il !ode pro"ides that Gin case of the sale of real estate for a lump sum and not at the rate of a specified price for each unit of measure or number there shall be no increase or decrease of the price e"en if the area or number be found to be more or less than that stated in the contract.G The transaction here in"ol"ed is one for a lump sum and not at a specified price for each unit of measure. Therefore, no reduction can be authorized although the area was less than what was stated in the contract.

"a,08 3, 2010

>acts?

,espondents sold to petitioner $ot 9o. --.<.. The deed of sale stated that the property co"ers an area of N;,<<< s uare meters, more or less.O Fowe"er, the said $ot 9o. --.<. actually co"ers -<, ;@= s m of land. Petitioner concluded that she is entitled to the entire lot, as the sale was for lump sum, and the "endor was bound to deli"er all that was included within the said boundaries e"en when it e%ceeded the area specified in the contract. (ssue?

&hether or not the sale was for lump sum, entitling the petitioner to the entire -<, ;@= s m of land

,uling?

The sale was for lump sumH howe"er, a ca"eat is in order as to the term Nmore or less.O Such use of Nmore or lessO designates only a reasonable e%cess or deficiency. (n this case, the discrepancy clearly cannot be considered a slight difference and should be e%cluded from the sale. >urthermore, the records re"eal that during the ocular inspection, petitioner specifically pointed to that portion of the lot, which she preferred to purchaseH on the other hand, respondents fenced off the area of -<,;@= s m belonging to them.

Petition is denied.