G.R. No. 76031 March 2, 1994
MIGUEL SEMIRA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and BUENAVENTURA
MIGUEL SEMIRA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and BUENAVENTURA
AN, respondents.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FACTS:
1. From Gutierrez to An
Juana Gutierrez owned a parcel of land, later designated as Lot 4221, situated in Sto. Niño, Taysan, Batangas which she sold to private respondent Buenaventura An for P850.00 by means of a "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" executed on 4 January 1961.
Aside from the estimated area of 822.5 square meters appearing in the deed of sale, the following boundaries of the lot are also stated: on the north, by Taysan-Lobo-Sto. Niño-Pinagbayanan and Sto. Niño-Dagatan Road (Junction or Intersection road); on the east, by Sto. Niño-Pinagbayanan Road and Juana Gutierrez; on the south, by Sto. Niño School site; and, on the west, by Sto. Niño-Dagatan Road.
Thereafter, private respondent entered the premises observing thereby the boundaries of the property and not the area given.
2. An to Ramirez (nephew)
On 18 October 1972, private respondent sold Lot 4221 to his nephew, Cipriano Ramirez, and spouse by means of another "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" for P2,500.00, 3 where the lot was described with the same area and boundaries mentioned in the 4 January 1961 "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa"
Like his uncle before him, Cipriano Ramirez occupied the lot by observing the boundaries stated in the document of sale. Subsequently, he applied for a new tax declaration to replace the one in the name of his uncle but was denied in view of an existing mortgage executed by Buenaventura An in favor of the Taysan Rural Bank, which was only settled in 1979.
3. Ramirez to Semira
On 12 March 1979, Cipriano Ramirez sold the lot to petitioner Miguel Semira for P20,000.00. However, the area stated in the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" 4 was 2,200 square meters and not 822.5 appearing in the previous document. As delimited by its boundaries, the lot is actually much bigger than 822.5 square meters. This was confirmed by the Taysan Cadastral Mapping Survey conducted in 1974 where it is definitely stated that the area of Lot 4221 is 2,200 square meters; hence, the reason for the change.
4. Rice-mill and Complaint for FORCIBLE ENTRY
On 17 March 1979, Miguel Semira entered the very same premises previously occupied by Ramirez and began the construction of a new rice-mill. However, on 18 April 1979, a complaint for forcible entry was filed against him by private respondent in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Taysan-Lobo. 5 The latter claimed that the
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FACTS:
1. From Gutierrez to An
Juana Gutierrez owned a parcel of land, later designated as Lot 4221, situated in Sto. Niño, Taysan, Batangas which she sold to private respondent Buenaventura An for P850.00 by means of a "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" executed on 4 January 1961.
Aside from the estimated area of 822.5 square meters appearing in the deed of sale, the following boundaries of the lot are also stated: on the north, by Taysan-Lobo-Sto. Niño-Pinagbayanan and Sto. Niño-Dagatan Road (Junction or Intersection road); on the east, by Sto. Niño-Pinagbayanan Road and Juana Gutierrez; on the south, by Sto. Niño School site; and, on the west, by Sto. Niño-Dagatan Road.
Thereafter, private respondent entered the premises observing thereby the boundaries of the property and not the area given.
2. An to Ramirez (nephew)
On 18 October 1972, private respondent sold Lot 4221 to his nephew, Cipriano Ramirez, and spouse by means of another "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" for P2,500.00, 3 where the lot was described with the same area and boundaries mentioned in the 4 January 1961 "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa"
Like his uncle before him, Cipriano Ramirez occupied the lot by observing the boundaries stated in the document of sale. Subsequently, he applied for a new tax declaration to replace the one in the name of his uncle but was denied in view of an existing mortgage executed by Buenaventura An in favor of the Taysan Rural Bank, which was only settled in 1979.
3. Ramirez to Semira
On 12 March 1979, Cipriano Ramirez sold the lot to petitioner Miguel Semira for P20,000.00. However, the area stated in the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" 4 was 2,200 square meters and not 822.5 appearing in the previous document. As delimited by its boundaries, the lot is actually much bigger than 822.5 square meters. This was confirmed by the Taysan Cadastral Mapping Survey conducted in 1974 where it is definitely stated that the area of Lot 4221 is 2,200 square meters; hence, the reason for the change.
4. Rice-mill and Complaint for FORCIBLE ENTRY
On 17 March 1979, Miguel Semira entered the very same premises previously occupied by Ramirez and began the construction of a new rice-mill. However, on 18 April 1979, a complaint for forcible entry was filed against him by private respondent in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Taysan-Lobo. 5 The latter claimed that the
area of Lot 4221 was 822.5 square meters only and that the excess of 1,377 square
meters forcibly occupied by petitioner formed part of Lot 4215 which he acquired
from the Hornillas in 1964.
5. ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Meanwhile, during the pendency of the case, private respondent applied for and was issued original Certificate of Title No. P-12694 over the lots he purchased from the Hornillas and that from Santiago Asi with a combined area of 19,606 square meters. However, the title was issued for 2 hectares, 8 ares and 33 centares or 20,833 square meters. No explanation was given for the difference.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
* municipal court of Taysan-Lobo (1979): dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
[since the issue of prior physical possession could not be resolved without first deciding on the ownership, dismissal was proper since forcible entry cases involve the sole issue of prior physical possession]
* mtc (upon passage of BP 129 in 1981): petitioner Semira is the owner.
[ "[m]etropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, and municipal circuit trial courts, without distinction, may try cases of forcible entry and detainer even if the question of ownership is raised in the pleadings and possession could not be resolved without deciding the ownership]
* RTC: reversed MTC.
[ it was not necessary to delve on the issue of ownership since the question of prior physical possession could be resolved independently, and that since petitioner admitted having possessed the disputed area on 12 March 1979 while the possession of private respondent began way back in 1964, the latter clearly had prior possession.]
* CA: affirmed RTC.
Thus, present petition.
ISSUE:
May the issue of possession be decide independently of the question of ownership?
HELD:
NO. issue of possession cannot be decide independently of the question of ownership. MTC decision sustained.
where land is sold for a lump sum and not so much per unit of measure or number, the boundaries of the land stated in the contract determine the effects and scope of the sale, not the area thereof. Hence, the vendors are obligated to deliver all the 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 where the area is described as "humigit kumulang," that is, more or less. These conclusions are drawn from Art. 1542 of the Civil code which states —
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 less are or number than that stated in the contract.
5. ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Meanwhile, during the pendency of the case, private respondent applied for and was issued original Certificate of Title No. P-12694 over the lots he purchased from the Hornillas and that from Santiago Asi with a combined area of 19,606 square meters. However, the title was issued for 2 hectares, 8 ares and 33 centares or 20,833 square meters. No explanation was given for the difference.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
* municipal court of Taysan-Lobo (1979): dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
[since the issue of prior physical possession could not be resolved without first deciding on the ownership, dismissal was proper since forcible entry cases involve the sole issue of prior physical possession]
* mtc (upon passage of BP 129 in 1981): petitioner Semira is the owner.
[ "[m]etropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts, and municipal circuit trial courts, without distinction, may try cases of forcible entry and detainer even if the question of ownership is raised in the pleadings and possession could not be resolved without deciding the ownership]
* RTC: reversed MTC.
[ it was not necessary to delve on the issue of ownership since the question of prior physical possession could be resolved independently, and that since petitioner admitted having possessed the disputed area on 12 March 1979 while the possession of private respondent began way back in 1964, the latter clearly had prior possession.]
* CA: affirmed RTC.
Thus, present petition.
ISSUE:
May the issue of possession be decide independently of the question of ownership?
HELD:
NO. issue of possession cannot be decide independently of the question of ownership. MTC decision sustained.
where land is sold for a lump sum and not so much per unit of measure or number, the boundaries of the land stated in the contract determine the effects and scope of the sale, not the area thereof. Hence, the vendors are obligated to deliver all the 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 where the area is described as "humigit kumulang," that is, more or less. These conclusions are drawn from Art. 1542 of the Civil code which states —
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 less are or number than that stated in the contract.
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.
Hence, when private respondent Buenaventura An sold Lot 4221 to his nephew Cipriano Ramirez by means of a "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" which incorporated both the area and the definite boundaries of the lot, the former transferred not merely the 822.5 square meters stated in their document of sale but the entire area circumscribed within its boundaries.
That the sale resulted in a disadvantage to private respondent does not confer on him any cause of action against petitioner.
NOTE:
the case before us is merely an action for forcible entry and that the issue of ownership was decided for the sole purpose of resolving priority of possession. Hence, any pronouncement made affecting ownership of the disputed portion is to be regarded merely as provisional, hence, does not bar nor prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the land.
Hence, when private respondent Buenaventura An sold Lot 4221 to his nephew Cipriano Ramirez by means of a "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" which incorporated both the area and the definite boundaries of the lot, the former transferred not merely the 822.5 square meters stated in their document of sale but the entire area circumscribed within its boundaries.
That the sale resulted in a disadvantage to private respondent does not confer on him any cause of action against petitioner.
NOTE:
the case before us is merely an action for forcible entry and that the issue of ownership was decided for the sole purpose of resolving priority of possession. Hence, any pronouncement made affecting ownership of the disputed portion is to be regarded merely as provisional, hence, does not bar nor prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the land.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment