del Prado vs. Caballero

The phrase "more or less" in a deed of sale covers only a reasonable excess or deficiency in area, and a vendee of land sold in gross does not ipso facto take all risk of quantity in the land. Where the discrepancy between the stated area and the actual area is substantial and sizeable, the sale cannot be deemed to have conveyed the entire larger area, and the specific boundaries stated in the contract must control over the stated area.

The case originated from Cadastral Case No. N-6 (LRC Rec. No. N-611) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 14, which adjudicated several parcels of land in Guba, Cebu City in favor of Spouses Antonio L. Caballero and Leonarda B. Caballero, including Cadastral Lot No. 11909. The respondents subsequently sold a portion of the lot to petitioner Carmen del Prado based on a tax declaration, before the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) covering the lot was issued.

In a judgment rendered on February 1, 1985 in Cadastral Case No. N-6 (LRC Rec. No. N-611), Judge Juan Y. Reyes of the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 14, adjudicated in favor of Spouses Antonio L. Caballero and Leonarda B. Caballero several parcels of land situated in Guba, Cebu City, one of which was Cadastral Lot No. 11909. On May 21, 1987, Antonio Caballero moved for the issuance of the final decree of registration for their lots, and on May 25, 1987, the court, through then Presiding Judge Renato C. Dacudao, ordered the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration to issue the decree of registration and the corresponding titles in favor of the Caballeros.

On June 11, 1990, respondents sold to petitioner Carmen del Prado Lot No. 11909 on the basis of the tax declaration covering the property. The deed of sale described the property as "one (1) unregistered parcel of land, situated at Guba, Cebu City," containing an area of 4,000 square meters, more or less, covered by Tax Dec. No. 00787, bounded on the North by Lot 11903, on the East by Lot 11908, on the West by Lot 11910, and on the South by Lots 11858 & 11912, for the sum of P40,000.00. Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1305, covering Lot No. 11909, was issued only on November 15, 1990, and entered in the "Registration Book" of the City of Cebu on December 19, 1990. The technical description of Lot No. 11909 in the OCT states that the lot measures about 14,457 square meters, more or less.

On March 20, 1991, petitioner filed in the same cadastral proceedings a "Petition for Registration of Document Under Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1529" in order that a certificate of title be issued in her name covering the whole Lot No. 11909. Petitioner alleged that the tenor of the instrument of sale indicated that the sale was for a lump sum or cuerpo cierto, in which case the vendor was bound to deliver all that was included within the boundaries even when it exceeded the area specified in the contract. Respondents opposed, on the main ground that only 4,000 sq m of Lot No. 11909 was sold to petitioner, claiming that the sale was not for a cuerpo cierto, and moved for the outright dismissal of the petition on grounds of prescription and lack of jurisdiction.

After trial on the merits, the RTC found that petitioner had established a clear and positive right to Lot No. 11909, ruling that the intended sale was for a lump sum since there was no evidence that the property was sold for a price per unit, and that the subject matter of the sale was the parcel of land known as Cadastral Lot No. 11909, not only a portion thereof. On appeal, the CA reversed, ruling that the petition for registration of document is not one of the remedies provided under P.D. No. 1529 after the original registration has been effected, and that the lower court committed an error when it assumed jurisdiction over the petition. The records reveal that when the parties made an ocular inspection, petitioner specifically pointed to that portion of the lot which she preferred to purchase, since there were mango trees planted and a deep well thereon, and after the sale, respondents delivered and segregated the area of 4,000 sq m in favor of petitioner by fencing off the area of 10,475 sq m belonging to them.

• Lump Sum Sale (Article 1542): Petitioner asserted that the plain language of the Deed of Sale shows that it is a sale of a real estate for a lump sum, governed under Article 1542 of the Civil Code, and that since the contract stated the land contains an area of 4,000 sq m "more or less" with stated boundaries, respondents are duty-bound to deliver the whole area within the boundaries without any corresponding increase in the price.
• Entitlement to Title: Petitioner concluded that she is entitled to have the certificate of title covering the whole Lot No. 11909, originally issued in the names of respondents, transferred to her name.
• Error of the CA: Petitioner raised that the CA committed grave error in making findings of fact contrary to that of the trial court and in failing to rule that the sale of the lot is for a lump sum or cuerpo cierto.

• Sale of Only 4,000 sq m: Respondents opposed the petition on the main ground that only 4,000 sq m of Lot No. 11909 was sold to petitioner, claiming that the sale was not for a cuerpo cierto.
• Prescription and Lack of Jurisdiction: Respondents moved for the outright dismissal of the petition on grounds of prescription and lack of jurisdiction.

• Character of the Sale: Whether the sale of the land was for a lump sum or cuerpo cierto, such that the vendor was bound to deliver the entire area within the stated boundaries.
• Jurisdiction of the RTC: Whether the court a quo has jurisdiction over the petition for registration of the deed of absolute sale dated June 11, 1990 executed between petitioner and respondents.

• Character of the Sale: No. The sale was not for a lump sum covering the entire Lot No. 11909. The discrepancy of 10,475 sq m between the stated area of 4,000 sq m and the actual area of 14,457 sq m is too substantial to be considered a reasonable excess or deficiency covered by the phrase "more or less," and the parties intended to sell only 4,000 sq m of the whole lot.
• Jurisdiction of the RTC: No. The petition for registration of document is not one of the remedies provided under P.D. No. 1529 after the original registration has been effected, and the one-year period to file the appropriate petition for review had long since expired, making the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued in favor of respondents incontrovertible.

• Character of the Sale: The Court discussed the distinction between a unit price contract and a lump sum contract, citing Esguerra vs. Trinidad. In a lump sum contract, the statement of area is not conclusive, and where both the area and boundaries of the immovable are declared, the area covered within the boundaries prevails over the stated area. However, the Court clarified that the rule laid down in Article 1542 is not hard and fast and admits of an exception: the use of "more or less" or similar words in designating quantity covers only a reasonable excess or deficiency. A vendee of land sold in gross or with the description "more or less" does not thereby ipso facto take all risk of quantity in the land. The Court found that the discrepancy of 10,475 sq m cannot be considered a slight difference in quantity; the difference in the area is obviously sizeable and too substantial to be overlooked. It is not a reasonable excess or deficiency that should be deemed included in the deed of sale. The Court took exception to the rule that it is not a trier of facts and lent credence to respondents' claim that they intended to sell only 4,000 sq m of the whole Lot No. 11909, as the records revealed that when the parties made an ocular inspection, petitioner specifically pointed to that portion of the lot which she preferred to purchase, and after the sale, respondents delivered and segregated the area of 4,000 sq m in favor of petitioner by fencing off the area of 10,475 sq m belonging to them.
• Jurisdiction of the RTC: The Court found no reversible error in the decision of the CA. It is a fundamental principle in land registration that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein, and such indefeasibility commences after one year from the date of entry of the decree of registration. Since the petition for registration of document did not interrupt the running of the period to file the appropriate petition for review, and considering that the prescribed one-year period had long since expired, the decree of registration, as well as the certificate of title issued in favor of respondents, had become incontrovertible.

• Reasonable excess or deficiency rule — The phrase "more or less" in a deed of sale covers only a reasonable excess or deficiency in area. A vendee of land sold in gross or with the description "more or less" with reference to its area does not thereby ipso facto take all risk of quantity in the land. In this case, the discrepancy of 10,475 sq m was found to be substantial and sizeable, not a reasonable excess or deficiency, and therefore not deemed included in the deed of sale.
• Boundaries prevail over stated area — Where both the area and the boundaries of the immovable are declared, the area covered within the boundaries of the immovable prevails over the stated area. In cases of conflict between areas and boundaries, it is the latter which should prevail. What really defines a piece of ground is not the area, calculated with more or less certainty, mentioned in its description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits. However, this rule is subject to the reasonable excess or deficiency exception.
• Indefeasibility of title — A certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. Such indefeasibility commences after one year from the date of entry of the decree of registration. In this case, the one-year period to challenge the decree had expired, making the respondents' title incontrovertible.

• "The use of 'more or less' or similar words in designating quantity covers only a reasonable excess or deficiency. A vendee of land sold in gross or with the description 'more or less' with reference to its area does not thereby ipso facto take all risk of quantity in the land." — This passage articulates the exception to the lump sum sale rule under Article 1542, which the Court applied to find that the substantial discrepancy in area was not covered by the deed of sale.
• "Clearly, the discrepancy of 10,475 sq m cannot be considered a slight difference in quantity. The difference in the area is obviously sizeable and too substantial to be overlooked. It is not a reasonable excess or deficiency that should be deemed included in the deed of sale." — This states the Court's application of the reasonable excess or deficiency rule to the facts, forming the basis for denying the petitioner's claim to the entire lot.
• "It is a fundamental principle in land registration that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. Such indefeasibility commences after one year from the date of entry of the decree of registration." — This passage states the controlling principle on the indefeasibility of title, which supported the Court's finding that the petitioner's remedy was improper and time-barred.

• Esguerra vs. Trinidad, G.R. No. 169890, March 12, 2007, 518 SCRA 186 — Controlling precedent discussing the distinction between unit price contracts and lump sum contracts in sales involving real estate, and the rule that boundaries prevail over stated area, subject to the reasonable excess or deficiency exception.
• Rudolf Lietz, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 478 SCRA 451 — Cited in Esguerra for the distinction between unit price and lump sum contracts, and the rule that in a lump sum sale, there shall be no increase or decrease of the price although there be a greater or lesser area than that stated in the contract.
• Roble vs. Arbasa, G.R. No. 130707, July 31, 2001, 362 SCRA 69 — Cited for the proposition that numerical data are not the sole gauge of unreasonableness of the excess or deficiency in area, and that courts must consider a host of other factors, including contemporaneous circumstances.
• Salinas vs. Faustino, G.R. No. 153077, September 19, 2008, 566 SCRA 18 — Cited for the rule that in a contract of sale of land in a mass, the specific boundaries stated in the contract must control over any other statement with respect to the area contained within its boundaries.

• Article 1542, Civil Code — Provides that in the sale of real estate made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or decrease of the price although there be a greater or lesser area than that stated in the contract. The Court applied this provision but clarified its exception: the rule is not hard and fast and admits of the reasonable excess or deficiency exception.
• Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — The Court held that the "petition for registration of document" is not one of the remedies provided under P.D. No. 1529 after the original registration has been effected, and that the petitioner availed herself of an improper remedy.

Corona (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Abad, and Mendoza, JJ., concurred.