CASE 2017-0004: DASMARINAS T. ARCAINA AND MAGNANI T. BANTA,   V. NOEMI L. INGRAM, REPRESENTED BY MA. NENETTE L. ARCHINUE, (G.R. NO. 196444, 15 FEBRUARY 2017,  JARDELEZA, J.:) (BRIEF TITLE: ARCAINA ET AL VS INGRAM)

                            

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The October 26, 2010 Decision and March 1 7, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107997 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The July 31, 2008 Order of the 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sto. Domingo-Manito, dismissing Civil Case No. S-241 for insufficiency of evidence, and ordering Ingram to pay Pl45,000.00 to petitioners, is hereby REINSTATED with MODIFICATION. Ingram is ordered to pay petitioners the amount of Pl45,000.00 to earn interest at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum from July 31, 200856 until the finality of this Decision. Thereafter, the total amount due shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum 57 until fully paid

 

SO ORDERED.”


SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“In a lump sum contract, a vendor is generally obligated to deliver all the land covered within the boundaries, regardless of whether the real area should be greater or smaller than that recited in the deed.49 However, in case there is conflict between the area actually covered by the boundaries and the estimated area stated in the contract of sale, he/she shall do so· only when the excess or deficiency between the fonner and the latter is reasonable.50


Applying Del Prado to the case before us, we find that the difference of 5,800 sq. m. is too substantial to be considered reasonable. We note that only 6,200 sq. m. was agreed upon between petitioners and Ingram. Declaring Ingram as the owner of the whole 12,000 sq. m. on the premise that this is the actual area included in the boundaries would be ordering the delivery of almost twice the area stated in the deeds of sale. Surely, Article 1542 does not contemplate such an unfair situation to befall a vendor-that he/she would be compelled to deliver double the amount that he/she originally sold without a corresponding increase in price. In Asiain v. Jalandoni,51 we explained that “[a] vendee of a land when it is sold in gross or with the description ‘more or less’ does not thereby ipso facto take all risk of quantity in the land. The use of ‘more or less’ or similar words in designating quantity covers only a reasonable excess or deficiency.”52 Therefore, we rule that Ingram is entitled only to 6,200 sq. m. of the property. An area of 5,800 sq. m. more than the area intended to be sold is not a reasonable excess that can be deemed included in the sale.53”


TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2017-0004-DASMARINAS T. ARCAINA AND MAGNANI T. BANTA VS. NOEMI L. INGRAM, REPRESENTED BY MA. NENETTE L. ARCHINUE

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.