Pacia vs. Lagman

In a sale of immovable property made for a lump sum and not at a price per unit of measure, the boundaries stated in the contract — not the area — determine the scope and effect of the sale; the true area within the boundaries prevails over any statement of area in the document. An appellate court will not substitute its own assessment of witness credibility for that of the trial court when the latter had the opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses.

Spouses Valentin Pacia and Toribia Lagman filed an application for confirmation and registration of title to five parcels of land. The parcels originally belonged to the spouses Feliciano Lagman and Joaquina Gagui. After the death of Feliciano and Joaquina, their children sold the lands to the petitioners, first under a pacto de retro in 1902 and then absolutely in 1908. Several oppositors, including Anacleta Lagman and other descendants of the vendors, contested the application, asserting that the sale conveyed only a limited area. Isidoro Lagman separately opposed a strip of land along the northern side of one parcel, claiming it as his inheritance from his father, German Lagman.

• Parties: Petitioners were the spouses Valentin Pacia and Toribia Lagman. Oppositors included Anacleta Lagman, Felisa Lagman, Gaudencio Santos, Emiliana Santos, Carmen Santos, and Juan Garcia — all relatives of the original owners. Isidoro Lagman separately opposed a strip of land. Tiburcia Buan and Cristino Lagman filed oppositions as well.
• Original Ownership: The lands originally belonged to the spouses Feliciano Lagman and Joaquina Gagui. Upon their deaths, their children — Anacleta, Gregorio, Segunda, and Maria Lagman — inherited the property.
• The 1902 Sale with Pacto de Retro: On June 16, 1902, the heirs sold the lands to petitioners for P120, with a right to repurchase within two years (Exhibit E).
• The 1908 Absolute Sale: Six years later, on April 23, 1908, the same heirs executed an absolute deed of sale in favor of petitioners for P200 (Exhibit F). Cristino Lagman, a relative of the vendors, served as an instrumental witness.
• Description in the Deeds: The deeds described two parcels with an area of approximately three and two “balitas,” respectively, but provided the metes and bounds of the land. The language indicated the parties intended to sell the entire parcels according to their true boundaries.
• Petitioners’ Possession and Tax Payments: From 1908, petitioners possessed parcels Nos. 1, 3, and 5 of plan Exhibit A, and parcel No. 2 of plan Exhibit B, under claim of ownership. They cultivated the lands, later leased parcel No. 2 to Angel Suntay for conversion into a fishpond (August 1930 to January 1932), and consistently paid land taxes (Exhibits I and J).
• Oppositors’ Shifting Claims: Anacleta Lagman and her co‑oppositors initially claimed exclusive ownership. At trial, after seeing the documentary evidence they could not deny, they argued they sold only part of parcel No. 1 (three balitas) and part of parcel No. 2 (two balitas). Later, they shifted theory again, claiming they merely allowed petitioners to occupy the lands for two years to recoup improvement costs. Apart from the testimony of close relatives, they presented no other evidence. They never declared the lands for tax purposes after the sales.
• The Disputed Strip: Isidoro Lagman claimed a strip of 1 hectare, 29 ares, and 51 centiares along the northern side of parcel No. 1. He alleged that the strip originally belonged to his father, German Lagman, who died in 1914, and that he succeeded to the possession and cultivation under claim of ownership. Isidoro declared the strip for taxation in 1916 and paid taxes continuously. Petitioners also claimed possession since 1902 and tax declarations from 1906.
• Lower Court’s Resolution: The trial court found Isidoro Lagman’s evidence credible and awarded the strip to him. It confirmed petitioners’ title to the remaining parcels based on the boundaries in the deeds, rejecting the oppositors’ area‑based argument.

• Award of Strip to Isidoro Lagman: Petitioners contended that the lower court erred in sustaining Isidoro Lagman’s opposition because their own evidence — possession since 1902, tax declarations since 1906, and cultivation — demonstrated superior title.
• Denial of New Trial: Petitioners maintained that the decision was contrary to law and against the weight of the evidence, warranting a new trial.

• Boundaries vs. Area in Lump‑Sum Sale: Whether the sale of land for a lump sum described by boundaries transferred the entire area within those boundaries, notwithstanding the reference to an approximate area in “balitas.”
• Review of Credibility Findings: Whether the Supreme Court could disturb the trial court’s award of the disputed strip to Isidoro Lagman, given the conflicting evidence and the trial judge’s direct observation of the witnesses.

• Boundaries vs. Area in Lump‑Sum Sale: The argument that the deeds conveyed only five “balitas” was rejected. In a sale of land made for a lump sum and not at a price per unit of measure, the boundaries stated in the contract are the determining factor of its scope, not the area. The real and true area within those boundaries prevails over the area given in the document. The Court applied the settled doctrine in Loyola v. Bartolome, Escudero and Marasigan v. Director of Lands, Government of the Philippine Islands v. Abaja, and Beltran v. Reyes. Here, the deeds described the two parcels as having “approximately” three and two balitas, respectively, a qualification that signaled the parties’ intent to sell the entirety according to the boundaries. The descriptions in the deeds, tax declarations, and the application matched exactly, and no reservation of any portion appeared in the documents. Consequently, the lower court correctly confirmed petitioners’ title to the entire parcels except the strip awarded to Isidoro Lagman.
• Review of Credibility Findings: The appeal concerning the strip was dismissed. Although petitioners presented evidence of possession and tax payments, the trial court found Isidoro Lagman’s testimony and documentary evidence credible. The appellate court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court on credibility unless the latter plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value. Following Baltazar v. Alberto, Lim Soco v. Roxas, United States v. Rice, and United States v. Melad, and recognizing that the trial judge personally heard and observed the witnesses, the award of the strip to Isidoro Lagman was affirmed.

• Boundaries Control in Lump‑Sum Sales — In a sale of realty made for a lump sum and not at a price per unit of measure, the boundaries stated in the contract, not the area, define the subject matter of the sale. The true area within those boundaries must prevail over any quantitative statement in the document, particularly when the area is described as approximate. Application: The deeds’ description of “approximately” three and two “balitas” did not limit the conveyance; the entire parcels within the stated boundaries passed to petitioners.
• Appellate Deference to Trial Court on Credibility — An appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings of fact, especially on witness credibility, when the trial judge had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses’ demeanor during trial, unless the trial court overlooked material facts of substance. Application: The Supreme Court declined to overturn the lower court’s award of the strip to Isidoro Lagman, as the conflicting evidence turned on credibility assessed by the trial judge.

• “In the matter of sales of land made for a lump sum and not at so much a unit of measure or number, the boundaries of said land stated in the contract, not the area thereof, are the determining factor of the effects, scope or meaning of said contract. The real and true area of the land must prevail over that given in the document.” — This passage encapsulates the ratio decidendi on the boundaries‑vs.‑area doctrine.
• “This is all the more true in the present case because said deeds of transfer Exhibits E and F show that the grantors thereof, in describing the lands transferred by them did not wish to give importance to the area of said lands inasmuch as in describing them they merely stated that the two parcels had an area of approximately three and two balitas, respectively, which statement implies that their purpose was to sell them in their entirety according to their true area included within the boundaries or limits given in said documents.” — The Court inferred the parties’ intent from the use of “approximately,” reinforcing the boundary‑based interpretation.

• Loyola v. Bartolome, 39 Phil. 544 — Followed as controlling authority for the rule that boundaries, not area, govern in a lump‑sum sale.
• Escudero and Marasigan v. Director of Lands, 44 Phil. 83 — Followed; applied the same principle.
• Government of the Philippine Islands v. Abaja, 52 Phil. 261 — Followed; reiterated the boundaries‑over‑area rule.
• Beltran v. Reyes, 55 Phil. 1004 — Followed; further support for the doctrine.
• Baltazar v. Alberto, 33 Phil. 336 — Cited as the basis for appellate deference to the trial court’s credibility assessment.
• Lim Soco v. Roxas, 26 Phil. 609 — Cited in support of the same deference rule.
• United States v. Rice, 27 Phil. 641 — Cited for the principle that appellate courts respect the trial judge’s observation of witnesses.
• United States v. Melad, 27 Phil. 488 — Ibid.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa‑Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Recto, and Laurel, JJ., concurred.

• One unnamed member of the Court dissented, expressing the view that the preponderance of evidence favored the petitioners with respect to the strip claimed by Isidoro Lagman. The dissent reasoned that Isidoro failed to prove his alleged possession, did not indicate the southern boundaries of the claimed land, and did not show the existence of fences, hedges, or dikes separating it from the petitioners’ property.