SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

G.R. No. 196444. February 15, 2017.*

DASMARIÑAS T. ARCAINA and MAGNANI T. BANTA,

petitioners, vs. NOEMI L. INGRAM, represented by MA.
NENETTE L. ARCHINUE, respondent.

Remedial Law; Evidence; Admissions; Judicial Admissions;

Judicial admissions made by the parties in the pleadings, or in the
course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case, are
conclusive and do not require further evidence to prove them.·
Judicial admissions made by the parties in the pleadings, or in the
course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case, are
conclusive and do not require further evidence to prove them. These
admissions cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have
been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was
made. Petitioners do not deny their previous admission, much less
allege that they had made a palpable mistake. Thus, they are bound
by it.
Civil Law; Sales; Lump Sum Sale; Where both the area and the
boundaries of the immovable are declared in a sale of real estate for
a lump sum, the area covered within the boundaries of the
immovable prevails over the stated area.·Where both the area and
the boundaries of the immovable are declared in a sale of real estate
for a lump sum, the area covered within the boundaries of the
immovable prevails over the stated area. The vendor is obliged to
deliver all that is included within the boundaries regardless of
whether the actual area is more than what was specified in the
contract of sale; and he/she shall do so without a corresponding
increase in the contract price. This is particularly true when the
stated area is qualified to be approximate only, such as when the
words „more or less‰ were used.
Same; Same; Same; In a lump sum contract, a vendor is

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 1 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

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.·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

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

607

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 607

Arcaina vs. Ingram

that recited in the deed. 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 former and the latter is
reasonable.
Same; Same; The use of Âmore or lessÊ or similar words in
designating quantity covers only a reasonable excess or deficiency.·
Applying Del Prado v. Caballero, 614 SCRA 102 (2010), 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, 45 Phil. 296
(1923), we explained that „[a] vendee of a land when it is sold in
gross or with the description Âmore or lessÊ does not thereby ipso
facto take all risk of quantity in the land. The use of Âmore or lessÊ or
similar words in designating quantity covers only a reasonable

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 2 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

excess or deficiency.‰ 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. Further, at the time of the sale,
Ingram and petitioners did not have knowledge of the actual area of
the land within the boundaries of the property. It is undisputed that
before the survey, the parties relied on the tax declaration covering
the lot, which merely stated that it measures more or less 6,200 sq.
m. Thus, when petitioners offered the property for sale and when
Ingram accepted the offer, the object of their consent or meeting of
the minds is only a 6,200-sq. m. property. The deeds of sale merely
put into writing what was agreed upon by the parties.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Madrilejos Law Office for petitioners.

608

608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arcaina vs. Ingram

Nereo Anri O. Cuebillas for respondent.

JARDELEZA, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the

October 26, 2010 Decision2 and March 17, 2011 Resolution3
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 107997,
which affirmed with modification the March 11, 2009
Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court Branch 7 of Legazpi
City (RTC). The RTC reversed the July 31, 2008 Order5 of
the 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sto. Domingo-
Manito in Albay (MCTC). The MCTC dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence Civil Case No. S-241 · a case for
recovery of ownership and title to real property, possession
and damages with preliminary injunction (recovery case) ·
filed by respondent Noemi L. Ingram (Ingram) against

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 3 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

petitioners Dasmariñas T. Arcaina (Arcaina) and Magnani

T. Banta (Banta) [collectively, petitioners].

Arcaina is the owner of Lot No. 3230 (property) located

at Salvacion, Sto. Domingo, Albay. Sometime in 2004, her
attorney-in-fact, Banta, entered into a contract with
Ingram for the sale of the property. Banta showed Ingram
and the latterÊs attorney-in-fact, respondent Ma. Nenette L.
Archinue (Archinue), the metes and bounds of the property
and represented that Lot No. 3230 has an area of more or
less 6,200 square meters (sq. m.) per the tax declaration
covering it. The contract price was P1,860,000.00 with
Ingram making in-

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 8-20.

2 Id., at pp. 32-44. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N.
Diamante, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevarra-Salonga and
Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo, concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 52-54.
4 Id., at pp. 28-31.
5 Id., at pp. 21-27.

609

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 609

Arcaina vs. Ingram

stallment payments for the property from May 5, 2004 to

February 10, 2005 totaling P1,715,000.00.6 Banta and
Ingram thereafter executed a Memorandum of Agreement
acknowledging the previous payments and that Ingram
still had an obligation to pay the remaining balance in the
amount of P145,000.00.7 They also separately executed
deeds of absolute sale over the property in IngramÊs favor.
Both deeds described the property to wit:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 4 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

DESCRIPTION

A parcel of land Lot No. 3230, situated at Salvacion, Sto.

Domingo, Albay, Bounded on the NE-by Lot 3184 on the SE-by
Seashore on the SW-Lot No. 3914 and on the NW-by Road with an
area of SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED (6,200) sq. meters
more or less.8

Subsequently, Ingram caused the property to be

surveyed and discovered that Lot No. 3230 has an area of
12,000 sq. m. Upon learning of the actual area of the
property, Banta allegedly insisted that the difference of
5,800 sq. m. remains unsold. This was opposed by Ingram
who claims that she owns the whole lot by virtue of the
sale.9 Thus, Archinue, on behalf of Ingram, instituted the
recovery case, docketed as Civil Case No. S-241, against
petitioners before the MCTC.
In her Complaint, Ingram alleged that upon discovery of
the actual area of the property, Banta insisted on fencing
the portion which she claimed to be unsold. Ingram further
maintained that she is ready to pay the balance of
P145,000.00 as soon as petitioners recognize her ownership
of the whole property. After all, the sale contemplated the
entire property as in fact the boundaries of the lot were
clearly stated in the

_______________

6 Id., at p. 33.
7 Id., at p. 69.
8 Id., at p. 68.
9 Id., at p. 34.

610

610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arcaina vs. Ingram

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 5 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

deeds of sale.10 Accordingly, Ingram prayed that the MCTC

declare her owner of the whole property and order
petitioners to pay moral damages, attorneyÊs fees and
litigation expenses. She also asked the court to issue a writ
of preliminary injunction to enjoin the petitioners from
undertaking acts of ownership over the alleged unsold
portion.11
In their Answer with Counterclaim, petitioners denied
that the sale contemplates the entire property and
contended that the parties agreed that only 6,200 sq. m.
shall be sold at the rate of P300.00 per sq. m.12 This,
according to petitioners, is consistent with the
contemporaneous acts of the parties: Ingram declared only
6,200 sq. m. of the property for tax purposes, while Arcaina
declared the remaining portion under her name with no
objection from Ingram. Petitioners averred that since
Ingram failed to show that that she has a right over the
unsold portion of the property, the complaint for recovery of
possession should be dismissed.13 By way of counterclaim,
petitioners asked for the payment of the balance of
P145,000.00, as well as attorneyÊs fees, litigation expenses,
and costs of suit.14
Trial ensued. After Ingram presented her evidence,
petitioners filed a demurrer on the grounds that (1) Ingram
failed to sufficiently establish her claim and (2) her claim
lacks basis in fact and in law.15
In its Order dated July 31, 2008, the MCTC granted
petitionersÊ demurrer and counterclaim against Ingram,
thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing this instant case is

hereby ordered DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.

_______________

10 Id., at p. 57.
11 Id., at pp. 58-59.
12 Id., at p. 70.
13 Id., at p. 72.
14 Id., at pp. 72-73.
15 Id., at p. 21.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 6 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

611

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 611

Arcaina vs. Ingram

Plaintiffs are further ordered to pay to the Defendants the

remaining amount of ONE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE
THOUSAND (P145,000.00) PESOS as counterclaim for the
remaining balance of the contract as admitted by the Plaintiffs
during the Pretrial.
SO ORDERED.16

The MCTC held that the testimonies of Ingram and her

witnesses suffer from several inconsistencies and
improbabilities. For instance, while Archinue claimed that
what was sold was the entire property, she also admitted in
her cross-examination that she was not present when the
sale was consummated between Banta, Ingram and
IngramÊs husband Jeffrey. Further, Archinue stated that
she was made aware before their ocular visit to the
property that the lot being sold is only 6,200 sq. m. based
on the tax declaration covering it.17 Ingram also had
knowledge of the area of the property as confirmed by her
husband JeffreyÊs testimony. Jeffrey also testified that
Banta gave them a copy of the tax declaration of the
property.18
The MCTC declared that the survey showed that the
property was 12,000 sq. m. or more than what was stated
in the deeds of sale.19 For Ingram to be awarded the excess
5,800
sq. m. portion of the property, she should have presented
evidence that she paid for the surplus area consistent with
Article 1540 of the Civil Code which reads:

Art. 1540. If, in the case of the preceding article, there is a

greater area or number in the immovable than that stated in the
contract, the vendee may accept the area included in the contract
and reject the rest. If he accepts the whole area, he must pay for the
same at the contract rate.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 7 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

_______________

16 Id., at p. 27. Penned by Judge Carlos L. Bona.

17 Id., at pp. 25-26.
18 Id., at p. 26.
19 Id., at p. 27.

612

612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arcaina vs. Ingram

Accordingly, since Ingram failed to show that she paid

for the value of the excess land area, the MCTC held that
she cannot claim ownership and possession of the whole
property.
On appeal, the RTC reversed and set aside the Order of
the MCTC, to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated

July 31, 2008 by the Municipal [Circuit] Trial Court of Sto.
Domingo, Albay is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new
judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Ordering plaintiff-appellant [referring to Ingram] to pay the
defendant-appellee [referring to Arcaina] the amount of
P145,000.00 representing the remaining balance of the purchase
price of Lot 3230;
2. Declaring Noemi L. Ingram the owner of the whole Lot 3230;
3. Ordering defendants-appellees Dasmariñas T. Arcaina and
Magnani Banta or their agents to remove the fence constructed
by them on the said lot and to respect the peaceful possession of
Noemi Ingram over the same;
4. Ordering defendants-appellees Dasmariñas Arcaina and
Magnani Banta to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff-
appellant Noemi Ingram the amount of P5,000.00 as reasonable
attorneyÊs fees; and
5. To pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.20

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 8 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

The RTC found that neither of the parties presented

competent evidence to prove the propertyÊs actual area.
Except for a photocopy of the cadastral map purportedly
showing the graphical presentation of the property, no plan
duly prepared and approved by the proper government
agency showing the

_______________

20 Id., at p. 31. Penned by Judge Jose G. Dy.

613

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 613

Arcaina vs. Ingram

area of the lot was presented. Hence, the RTC concluded

that the area of Lot No. 3230 as shown by the boundaries
indicated in the deeds of sale is only 6,200 sq. m. more or
less. Having sold Lot No. 3230 to Ingram, Arcaina must
vacate it.21
In addition, the RTC held that Article 1542, which
covers sale of real estate in lump sum, applies in this case.
Having apparently sold the entire Lot No. 3230 for a
lump sum, Arcaina, as the vendor, is obligated to deliver all
the land included in the boundaries of the property,
regardless of whether the real area should be greater or
smaller than what is recited in the deeds of sale.22
In its Decision dated October 26, 2010, the CA affirmed
the RTCÊs ruling with modification. It deleted paragraphs 4
and 5 of the dispositive portion of the RTCÊs Decision,
which ordered petitioners to pay P5,000.00 as attorneyÊs
fees and costs of suit, respectively.23
The CA agreed with the RTC that other than the
uniform statements of the parties, no evidence was
presented to show that the property was found to have an
actual area of more or less 12,000 sq. m. It held that the
partiesÊ statements cannot be simply admitted as true and
correct because the area of the land is a matter of public

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 9 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

record and presumed to have been recorded in the Registry

of Deeds. The CA noted that the best evidence should have
been a certified true copy of the survey plan duly approved
by the proper government agency.24
The CA also agreed with the RTC that the sale was
made for a lump sum and not on a per square-meter basis.
The parties merely agreed on the purchase price of
P1,860,000.00 for the 6,200 sq. m. lot, with the deed of sale
providing for the specific boundaries of the property.25
Citing Rudolf Lietz, Inc.

_______________

21 Id., at p. 30.
22 Id.
23 Id., at p. 43.
24 Id., at pp. 40-41.
25 Id., at p. 41.

614

614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arcaina vs. Ingram

v. Court of Appeals,26 the CA explained that in case of

conflict between the area and the boundaries of a land
subject of the sale, the vendor is obliged to deliver to the
vendee everything within the boundaries. This is in
consonance with Article 1542 of the Civil Code. Further,
the CA found the area in excess „substantial‰ which, to its
mind, „should have not escaped the discerning eye of an
ordinary vendor of a piece of land.‰27 Thus, it held that the
RTC correctly ordered petitioners to deliver the entire
property to Ingram.
The CA, however, deleted the award of attorneyÊs fees
and the costs of suit, stating that there was no basis in
awarding them. First, the RTC did not discuss the grounds
for granting attorneyÊs fees in the body of its decision.
Second, Arcaina cannot be faulted for claiming and then

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 10 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

fencing the excess area of the land after the survey on her
honest belief that the ownership remained with her.28
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, raising for the
first time the issue of prescription. They pleaded that
under Article 154329 of the Civil Code, Ingram should have
filed the action within six months from the delivery of the
property. Counting from ArcainaÊs execution of the
notarized deed of absolute sale on April 13, 2005,
petitioners concluded that the filing of the case only on
January 25, 2006 is already time-barred.30 The CA denied
petitionersÊ motion for reconsideration and ruled that
Article 1543 does not apply because Ingram had no
intention of rescinding the sale. In fact, she instituted the
action to recover the excess portion of the land that
petitioners claimed to be unsold. Thus, insofar as Ingram is
concerned, that portion remained undelivered.31

_______________

26 G.R. No. 122463, December 19, 2005, 478 SCRA 451.

27 Rollo, pp. 41-42.
28 Id., at pp. 42-43.
29 Art. 1543. The actions arising from Articles 1539 and 1542 shall
prescribe in six months, counted from the day of delivery.
30 Rollo, p. 47.
31 Id., at p. 53.

615

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 615

Arcaina vs. Ingram

Petitioners now assail the CAÊs declaration that the sale

of the property was made for a lump sum. They insist that
they sold the property on a per square-meter basis, at the
rate of P300.00 per sq. m. They further claim that they
were aware that the property contains more than 6,200 sq.
m. According to petitioners, this is the reason why the area
sold is specifically stated in the deeds of sale.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 11 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

Unfortunately, in the drafting of the deeds, the word

„portion‰ was omitted. They allege that contemporaneously
with the execution of the formal contract of sale, they
delivered the area sold and constructed a fence delineating
the unsold portion of the property.32 Ingram allegedly
recognized the demarcation because she introduced
improvements confined to the area delivered.33 Since the
sale was on a per square-meter basis, petitioners argue
that it is Article 1539,34 and not Article 1542 of the Civil
Code,

_______________

32 Id., at p. 15.
33 Id., at p. 16.
34 Art. 1539. The obligation to deliver the thing sold includes that
of placing in the control of the vendee all that is mentioned in the
contract, in conformity with the following rules:
If the sale of real estate should be made with a statement of its
area, at the rate of a certain price for a unit of measure or
number, the vendor shall be obliged to deliver to the vendee, if
the latter should demand it, all that may have been stated in the
contract; but, should this be not possible, the vendee may choose
between a proportional reduction of the price and the rescission
of the contract, provided that, in the latter case, the lack in the
area be not less than one-tenth of that stated.
The same shall be done, even when the area is the same, if any part of
the immovable is not of the quality specified in the contract.
The rescission, in this case, shall only take place at the will of the
vendee, when the inferior value of the thing sold exceeds one-tenth of the
price agreed upon.
Nevertheless, if the vendee would not have bought the immovable had
he known of its smaller area or inferior quality, he may rescind the sale.
(Emphasis supplied)

616

616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arcaina vs. Ingram

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 12 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

which governs.35
In her Comment, Ingram accuses petitioners of raising
new and irrelevant issues based on factual allegations
which they cannot in any case prove, as a consequence of
their filing a demurrer to evidence.36 She maintains that
the only issue for resolution is whether the sale was made
on a lump sum or per square-meter basis. On this score,
Ingram asserts that the parties intended the sale of the
entire lot, the boundaries of which were stated in the deeds
of sale. These deeds of sale, as observed by the CA, did not
contain any qualification.37

II

At the outset, we find that contrary to the findings of the

RTC and the CA, the result of the survey conducted on the
property is not a disputed fact. In their Answer to the
Complaint, petitioners admitted that when the property
was surveyed, it yielded an area of more or less 12,000 sq.
m.38 Nevertheless, petitioners now proffer that they agree
with the CA that the final survey of the property is not yet
approved; hence, there can be no valid verdict for the final
adjudication of the partiesÊ rights under the contract of
sale.39
We reject petitionersÊ contention on this point.
Judicial admissions made by the parties in the
pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings
in the same case, are conclusive and do not require further
evidence to prove them. These admissions cannot be
contradicted unless previously shown to have been made
through palpable mistake or that no such admission was
made.40 Petitioners do not

_______________

35 Rollo, p. 16.
36 Id., at pp. 85-87.
37 Id., at p. 86.
38 Id., at pp. 70-71.
39 Id., at p. 14.
40 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) v. Pingol,
G.R. No. 182622, September 8, 2010, 630 SCRA 413, 421, citing

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 13 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

617

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 617

Arcaina vs. Ingram

deny their previous admission, much less allege that they

had made a palpable mistake. Thus, they are bound by it.
We now resolve the main issue in this case and hold that
Lot No. 3230 was sold for a lump sum. In sales involving
real estate, the parties may choose between two types of
pricing agreement: a unit price contract wherein the
purchase price is determined by way of reference to a
stated rate per unit area (e.g., P1,000.00 per sq. m.) or a
lump sum contract which states a full purchase price for
an immovable the area of which may be declared based on
an estimate or where both the area and boundaries are
stated (e.g., P1 million for 1,000 sq. m., etc.).41 Here, the
Deed of Sale executed by Banta on March 21, 200542 and
the Deed of Sale executed by Arcaina on April 13, 200543
both show that the property was conveyed to Ingram at the
predetermined price of P1,860,000.00. There was no
indication that it was bought on a per square-meter basis.
Thus, Article 1542 of the Civil Code governs the sale, viz.:

Art. 1542. 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 area 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

_______________

Damasco v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 115755,

December 4, 2000, 346 SCRA 714, 725, also citing Philippine American
General Insurance Co., Inc. v. Sweet Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 87434, August

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 14 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

5, 1992, 212 SCRA 194, 204.

41 Esguerra v. Trinidad, G.R. No. 169890, March 12, 2007, 518 SCRA
186, 196-197.
42 Rollo, p. 67.
43 Id., at p. 68.

618

618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arcaina vs. Ingram

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.

The provision teaches that where both the area and the
boundaries of the immovable are declared in a sale of real
estate for a lump sum, the area covered within the
boundaries of the immovable prevails over the stated
area.44 The vendor is obliged to deliver all that is included
within the boundaries regardless of whether the actual
area is more than what was specified in the contract of
sale; and he/she shall do so without a corresponding
increase in the contract price. This is particularly true
when the stated area is qualified to be approximate only,
such as when the words „more or less‰ were used.45
The deeds of sale in this case provide both the
boundaries and the estimated area of the property. The
land is bounded on the North East by Lot No. 3184, on the
South East by sea​shore, on the South West by Lot No. 3914
and on the North West by a road.46 It has an area of more
or less 6,200 sq. m. The uniform allegations of petitioners
and Ingram, however, reveal that the actual area within
the boundaries of the property amounts to more or less
12,000 sq. m., with a difference of 5,800 sq. m. from what

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 15 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

was stated in the deeds of sale. With Article 1542 in mind,

the RTC and the CA ordered petitioners to deliver the
excess area to Ingram.
They are mistaken.

_______________

44 See Rudolf Lietz, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 26 at p. 459.

45 Santa Ana, Jr. v. Hernandez, No. L-16394, December 17, 1966, 18
SCRA 973, 979.
46 Rollo, pp. 67-68.

619

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 619

Arcaina vs. Ingram

In Del Prado v. Spouses Caballero,47 we were confronted

with facts analogous to the present petition. Pending the
issuance of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) in their
name, Spouses Caballero sold a parcel of land to Del Prado.
The contract of sale stated both the propertyÊs boundaries
and estimated area of more or less 4,000 sq. m. Later, when
the OCT was issued, the technical description of the
property appeared to be 14,457 sq. m., more or less. Del
Prado alleged that Spouses Caballero were bound to deliver
all that was included in the boundaries of the land since
the sale was made for a lump sum. Although, we agreed
with Del Prado that the sale partakes of the nature of a
lump sum contract, we did not apply Article 1542. In
holding that Del Prado is entitled only to the area stated in
the contract of sale, we explained:

The Court, however, clarified that the rule laid down in

Article 1542 is not hard and fast and admits of an exception.
It held:
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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 16 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

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.
xxx
In the instant case, the deed of sale is not one of a unit price
contract. The parties agreed on the purchase price of P40,000.00 for
a predetermined area of 4,000 sq. m., more or less, bounded on the
North by Lot No. 11903, on the East by Lot No. 11908, on the South
by Lot Nos. 11858 & 11912, and on the West by Lot No. 11910. In a
contract of sale of land in a mass, the specific boundaries

_______________

47 G.R. No. 148225, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 102.

620

620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arcaina vs. Ingram

stated in the contract must control over any other statement, with
respect to the area contained within its boundaries.
BlackÊs Law Dictionary defines the phrase „more or less‰
to mean:
„About; substantially; or approximately; implying that
both parties assume the risk of any ordinary discrepancy.
The words are intended to cover slight or unimportant
inaccuracies in quantity, Carter v. Finch, 186 Ark. 954,
57 S.W.2d 408; and are ordinarily to be interpreted as
taking care of unsubstantial differences or differences
of small importance compared to the whole number of
items transferred.‰
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.48 (Emphasis
supplied; citations omitted)

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 17 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

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 former and the latter is reasonable.50

_______________

48 Id., at pp. 110-111.

49 Balantakbo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108515, October 16, 1995,
249 SCRA 323, 327-328, citing Pacia v. Lagman, 63 Phil. 361 (1936).
50 Del Prado v. Caballero, supra note 47.

621

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 621

Arcaina vs. Ingram

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 Âmore or lessÊ does not thereby
ipso facto take all risk of quantity in the land. The use of
Âmore or lessÊ or similar words in designating quantity
covers only a reasonable excess or deficiency.‰52 Therefore,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 18 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

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
Further, at the time of the sale, Ingram and petitioners
did not have knowledge of the actual area of the land
within the boundaries of the property. It is undisputed that
before the survey, the parties relied on the tax declaration
covering the lot, which merely stated that it measures more
or less 6,200 sq. m. Thus, when petitioners offered the
property for sale and when Ingram accepted the offer, the
object of their consent or meeting of the minds is only a
6,200-sq. m. property. The deeds of sale merely put into
writing what was agreed upon by the parties. In this
regard, we quote with approval the ruling of the MCTC:

_______________

51 45 Phil. 296 (1923).

52 Id., at pp. 309-310.
53 See Roble v. Arbasa, G.R. No. 130707, July 31, 2001, 362 SCRA 69,
81.

622

622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Arcaina vs. Ingram

In this case, the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit „M‰) dated April
13, 2005 is clear and unequivocal as to the area sold being up to
only 6,200 square meters. The agreement of the parties were clear
and unambiguous, hence, the inconsistent and impossible
testimonies of N[e]nette [Archinue] and the Spouses Ingram. No
amount of extrinsic aids are required and no further extraneous
sources are necessary in order to ascertain the partiesÊ intent,
determinable as it is, from the document itself. The court is thus
convinced that the deed expresses truly the partiesÊ intent as
against the oral testimonies of Nenette, and the Spouses Ingram.54

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 19 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

The contract of sale is the law between Ingram and

petitioners; it must be complied with in good faith.
Petitioners have already performed their obligation by
delivering the 6,200-sq. m. property. Since Ingram has yet
to fulfill her end of the bargain,55 she must pay petitioners
the remaining balance of the contract price amounting to
P145,000.00.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
GRANTED. The October 26, 2010 Decision and March 17,
2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P.
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 P145,000.00 to petitioners, is hereby REINSTATED
with MODIFICATION.
Ingram is ordered to pay petitioners the amount of
P145,000.00 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 annum57 until fully paid.

_______________

54 Rollo, p. 27.
55 Id., at p. 57.
56 The date of the MCTCÊs Order.
57 Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703
SCRA 439.

623

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 623

Arcaina vs. Ingram

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Reyes and

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 20 of 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817 05/09/2019, 12)34 AM

Caguioa,** JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

set aside.

Notes.·Where the parties agreed on a sale at a rate of

a certain price per unit of measure and not one for a lump
sum, it is Article 1539 and not Article 1542 which is the
applicable law · the buyer is entitled to the relief afforded
to him under Article 1539, that is, either a proportional
reduction of the price or the rescission of the contract, at
his option. (Cebu Winland Development Corporation vs.
Ong Siao Hua, 588 SCRA 120 [2009])
In sales involving real estate, the parties may choose
between two types of pricing agreement: a unit price
contract and a lump sum contract. (Del Prado vs.
Caballero, 614 SCRA 102 [2010])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cfd18c359e6439ce2003600fb002c009e/p/AUD494/?username=Guest Page 21 of 21