G.R. No. L-29449 December 29, 1928 LEODEGARIO AZARRAGA v.

MARIA GAY

Facts: Leodegario sold two parcels of land to Maria. Maria subsequently refused to fulfil the sale, or at
least, to complete payment of the agreed purchase price, because the 2nd land sold was actually smaller
than that stipulated in the contract. But because she had opportunity to check the actual quality of the
land and Leodegario did not prevent her from investigating it, she cannot claim that she had been
defrauded. > Contract of Sale (January 17, 1921) between Leodegario Azarraga and Maria Gay where
former sold two parcels of land (102 and 98 hectares each) to latter for the lump sum of P47k, payable in
instalments > Payment of P25k according to schedule but failure to pay P10k and P12k despite issuance of
the Torrens title of the 2nd parcel as agreed upon > SUIT by Leodegario for payment of P22k >
CONTENTION of Maria: Admitted the sale but alleged that Leodegario defrauded/induced/deceived her
when he represented in the Contract that the 2nd parcel was 98 hectares but it was just actually 60
hectares according to the Title ~ HENCE, she is entitled to a reduction in the price worth P38k; that she also
paid other sums amounting to P4k and she never refused payment but it was Leodegario who refused to
receive it > CONTENTION of Leodegario: that the contract of sale in question was made only for the lump
sum of P47k and not at the rate of so much per hectare > NO FRAUD > Maria had the opportunity to know
the facts before the execution of the sale (a) Maria went over to the property and made her own
calculations as to the area of the 2 parcels (b) Leodegario delivered to her the documents covering the land
he was trying to sell ~ On September 30, 1920, the Deed by which he acquired the land from the original
owner in which it appears that the area of the second parcel is about 70 hectares 39 (c) Maria did not
complain of the difference in the area of said second parcel until 1926: (i) On June 1924, Copy of the plans
of the two parcels, wherein appear their respective areas; (ii) From 1921-1925, Letters by Maria to
Leodegario where she acknowledges her debt but confining herself to petitioning for extensions of time for
payment (d) Maria had her attorney draw the Deed of Sale, based on the Deed of Leodegario which he
gave to her ~ Despite mistake in hectares, Leodegario signed it because he did not pay any attention to the
area of the second parcel anymore with the belief that the area of the land stipulated had been taken from
his Deed (e) No evidence that Leodegario misrepresented the size of the property BUT EVEN IF HE DID,
Maria accepted such representations at her own risk and she is the only one responsible for the
consequences of her inexcusable credulousness (f) No evidence that Leodegario prevented her from
investigating the property > No right to claim the shortage in area of the second property > WHY: No legal
basis > ART. 1471 DOES NOT APPLY: In 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, there shall be no increase or decrease of the price even if the area
be found to be more or less than that stated in the contract. The same rule shall apply when two or more
estates are sold for a single price; but, if in addition to a statement of the boundaries, which is
indispensable in every conveyance of real estate, the area of the estate should be designated in the
contract, the vendor shall be obliged to deliver all that is included with such boundaries, even should it
exceed the area specified in the contract; and, should he not be able to do so, he shall suffer a reduction of
the price in proportion to what is lacking of the area, unless the contract be annulled by reason of the
vendee's refusal to accept anything other than that which was stipulated. ~ 2nd parcel, in its entirety, had
already been delivered to Maria >> Songco v. Sellner: Exceedingly risky to accept seller's statements or
dealer's talk at its face value > assertions concerning the property which is the subject of a contract of sale,
or in regard to its qualities and characteristics, are the usual and ordinary means used by sellers to obtain a
high price ~ He who relies upon such an affirmation made by a person whose interest might so readily
prompt him to exaggerate the value of his property does so at his peril, and must take the consequences of
his own imprudence > HENCE, Misrepresentation by a vendor of real property with reference to its area are
not actionable, where a correct description of the property was given in the deed and recorded chain of
title, which the purchaser's agent undertook to investigate and report upon, and the vendor made on effort
to prevent a full investigation ~ One who contracts for the purchase of real estate in reliance on the
representations and statements of the vendor as to its character and value, but after he has visited and
examined it for himself, and has had the means and opportunity of verifying such statements, cannot avoid
the contract on the ground that they were false or exaggerated >> Sale of Determinate Objects: Sale is for a
lump sum with its consideration an object sold independently of its number or measure, the thing as
determined by the stipulated boundaries > The price is determined in relation to the determinate object,
and not the number of units it contains ~ greater or lesser area cannot influence the increase or decrease
of the price agreed upon > Sale is either of a single realty or when it is two or more so long as they are sold
for a single price constituting a lump sum and not for a specified amount per unit of measure or number >
HENCE, no increase or decrease in price, no matter whether the area be more or less than that given in the
contract AS LONG AS everything included within the boundaries is delivered ~ WHY: there is, strictly
speaking, no excess of area with respect to the area appearing in the deed because it was not taken into
account in entering into the contract inasmuch as the parties made neither the amount of the price, nor
the efficacy of the contract to depend on the number of its units > WHAT THE LAW MEANS BY INABILITY TO
DELIVER: When the property contains a part, a building, a valley, various pieces of land, a glen, etc., which
are not his BECAUSE THEN he cannot deliver a determinate object ~ Remedy of Annulment or Price
Reduction applies

FELICIANO ESGUERRA, et al. v. VIRGINIA TRINIDAD, et al.

518 SCRA 186 (2007)

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.

Felipe Esguerra and Praxedes de Vera (Esguerra spouses) owned several parcels of land half of which they
sold to their grandchildren Feliciano, Canuto, Justa, Angel, Fidela, Clara and Pedro, all surnamed Esguerra.
The spouses sold half the remaining land were sold their other grandchildren, the brothers Eulalio and
Julian Trinidad.. Subsequentlly, the Esguerra spouses executed the necessary Deeds of Sale before a notary
public. They also executed a deed of partitioning of the lots , all were about 5,000 square meteres each.

Eulalio Trinidad (Trinidad) later sold his share of the land to his daughters. During a cadastral survey
conducted in the late 1960s, it was discovered that the 5,000-square meter portion of Esguerra‘s parcel of
land sold to Trinidad actually measured 6,268 square meters.

Feliciano Esguerra (Feliciano), who inhabits the lot bordering Trinidad, subsequently filed a motion for
nullification of sale between the Esguerra spouses and Trinidad on the ground that they were procured
through fraud or misrepresentation. Feliciano contended that the stipulations in the deed of sale was that
Trinidad was sold a 5,000 square meter lot. The boundaries stipulated in the contract of sale
which extend the lot‘s area

Both cases were consolidated and tried before the RTC which, after trial, dismissed the cases. On appeal,
the appellate court also dismissed the cases; and subsequently, the motion for reconsideration was also
denied.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the Appellate Court erred in holding that the description and boundaries of the lot override
the stated area of the lot in the deed of sale

HELD:

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. In a
contract of sale of land in a mass, it is well established that the specific boundaries stated in the contract
must control over any statement with respect to the area contained within its boundaries. It is not of
vital consequence that a deed or contract of sale of land should disclose the area with mathematical
accuracy. It is sufficient if its extent is objectively indicated with sufficient precision to enable one to
identify it. An error as to the superficial area is immaterial. Thus, the obligation of the vendor is to deliver
everything within the boundaries, inasmuch as it is the entirety thereof that distinguishes the determinate
object.

Under the Torrens System, an OCT enjoys a presumption of validity, which correlatively carries a strong
presumption that the provisions of the law governing the registration of land which led to its issuance have
been duly followed. Fraud being a serious charge, it must be supported by clear and convincing proof.
Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof, however.

The same rule shall be applied when two or more immovables are sold for a single price; but if, besides
mentioning the boundaries, which is indispensable in every conveyance of real estate, its area or number
should be designated in the contract, the vendor shall be bound to deliver all that is included within said
boundaries, even when it exceeds the area or number specified in the contract; and, should he not be able
to do so, he shall suffer a reduction in the price, in proportion to what is lacking in the area or number,
unless the contract is rescinded because the vendee does not accede to the failure to deliver what has
been stipulated.

In fine, under Article 1542, what is controlling is the entire land included within the boundaries, regardless
of whether the real area should be greater or smaller than that recited in the deed. This is particularly true
since the area of the land in OCT No. 0-6498 was described in the deed as “humigit kumulang,” that is,
more or less.

A caveat is in order, however. 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.

SPOUSES GODOFREDO ALFREDO and CARMEN LIMON ALFREDO v SPOUSES ARMANDO BORRAS and ADELIA LOBATON
BORRAS
FACTS:The Alfredo spouses mortgaged their land to DBP. To pay their debt, theysold the land to spouses Borras for
P15,000. The latter also assumed to paythe loan. Borras subsequently paid the balance of the purchase price of theland
for which Alfredo issued a receipt dated 11 March 1970 as well as the
corresponding owner’s duplicate copy of the land’s OCT.
Borras thereaftertook possession of the said land. Later, they found out that Alfredo sold theland again to
other buyers by securing duplicate copies of the OCTs uponpetition with the court. Thus, they filed for specific
performance. Alfredospouses claimed that the sale, not being in writing, is unenforceable underthe Statute
of Frauds.
ISSUE: W/N the contract of sale is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
HELD: NO.The Statute of Frauds provides that a contract for the sale of real propertyshall be unenforceable
unless the contract or some note or memorandum ofthe sale is in writing and subscribed by the party charged or his
agent. Theexistence of the receipt dated 11 March 1970, which is a memorandum ofthe sale, removes the transaction
from the provisions of the Statute ofFrauds.The Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts and not tocontracts
either partially or totally performed. Thus, where one party has
performed one’s obligation, oral evidence will be admitted to prove the
agreement. In the instant case, the parties have consummated the sale of theSubject Land, with both sellers and buyers
performing their respectiveobligations under the contract of sale. In addition, a contract that violatesthe Statute
of Frauds is ratified by the acceptance of benefits under thecontract. Alfredo spouses benefited from the contract because they
paidtheir DBP loan and secured the cancellation of their mortgage using themoney given by Borras. Alfredo also accepted
payment of the balance of thepurchase price.Alfredo spouses cannot invoke the Statute of Frauds to deny the
existence ofthe verbal contract of sale because they have performed their obligations,and have accepted
benefits, under the verbal contract. Borras spouses havealso performed their obligations under the verbal contract. Clearly, both
thesellers and the buyers have consummated the verbal contract of sale of theSubject Land. The Statute of Frauds was
enacted to prevent fraud. This lawcannot be used to advance the very evil the law seeks to prevent.