Gonzales de Mondragon v. Santos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff-appellant Nieves Vda. de Gonzales de Mondragon sought to rescind a deed of sale (Annex A) for Hacienda Esperanza, praying for the reconveyance of land and delivery of palay or its value, or alternatively, payment of a sum representing the restitution of the selling price in Japanese military notes. A third amended complaint sought to recover parcels allegedly not included in the contract but taken by the defendant. The deceased Don Joaquin Gonzales Mondragon left Hacienda Esperanza, with his widow (plaintiff) inheriting 33/34 of it. After partition in 1941, the plaintiff and some children sold their shares to defendant Roman Santos via a deed of sale (Exhibit A) on August 5, 1941, for a total price of P943,500. Plaintiff's share was P460,000. A subsequent survey showed plaintiff's share to be 1,091.24 hectares, whereas the partition plan indicated 1,023 hectares. Plaintiff claimed she sold based on P450 per hectare and did not read the deed due to illness, believing she was selling only 1,023 hectares. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the complaint. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed the dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the sale of Hacienda Esperanza was made for a lump sum or by the hectare. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a reduction of the price or rescission of the contract due to a discrepancy in the area of the land sold. Whether lot No. 4397-A and barrio lots and roads were included in the sale.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, dismissing the complaint. The sale was deemed to be for a lump sum, and the plaintiff failed to prove mutual mistake or error that would warrant rescission or reformation of the deed of sale. The inclusion of lot No. 4397-A and barrio lots and roads in the sale was also upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the sale was for a lump sum or by the hectare: The Court held that the deed of sale, Exhibit A, explicitly stated the sale was for a total sum of P943,500, with specific amounts allocated to each seller, including P460,000 for the plaintiff. This language, coupled with the inclusion of buildings, improvements, standing crops, and barrio lots and roads, indicated a sale for a lump sum and not by the hectare. Article 1471 of the Civil Code provides that in a sale of immovable property for a lump sum, there shall be no increase or decrease in price, even if there be a greater or less area or number than that stated in the contract. The plaintiff's claim that she sold based on P450 per hectare was not sufficiently proven to overcome the clear terms of the written contract. The Court noted that the plaintiff and her co-vendors were intelligent and experienced individuals who had the opportunity to read and understand the deed before signing. On the discrepancy in area and entitlement to relief: The Court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof to overcome the presumption that the document signed expressed the true intention of the parties. While it was acknowledged that the parties might have considered the erroneous partition plan (Exhibit 10) during negotiations, this only served as preliminary discussions. The final agreement, as reduced to writing, was a sale for a gross amount. The discrepancy in area (1,091.24 hectares vs. 1,023 hectares) was considered within the range of ordinary contingency for a transaction of this magnitude and did not constitute a mutual mistake that would justify rescission under Article 1469 of the Civil Code. The plaintiff's claim of mistake was unilateral, and there was no evidence that the buyer shared this belief or that the error was mutual. On the inclusion of lot No. 4397-A and barrio lots and roads: The Court ruled that the phrase "todo su derecho, interes, y participacion en la Hacienda Esperanza" in the deed of sale, when construed literally and properly, conveyed the entire estate in the property in the absence of any limitations. Lot No. 4397-A was included in the transfer certificate of title delivered to the purchaser. The plaintiff's exclusive right to sell her share in the residential lots and roads, even if still pro-indiviso, meant she was selling her right and interest in these, which were embraced in the conveyance. The filing of the third amended complaint over six years after the initial complaint, without a showing of ignorance of the defendant's possession, also detracted from the merit of this claim.
Main Doctrine
In the sale of immovable property for a lump sum, the vendor is not obliged to deliver more and the vendee is not entitled to demand more than what was agreed upon, even if the area stated in the contract is greater or less than the actual area. The contract is binding as written unless mutual mistake is proven by clear and satisfactory evidence.