Del Prado v. Caballero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 1985, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City adjudicated several parcels of land, including Lot No. 11909, to Spouses Antonio L. Caballero and Leonarda B. Caballero. Subsequently, on June 11, 1990, the Caballeros sold Lot No. 11909 to Carmen del Prado for P40,000.00, describing it as an unregistered parcel of land situated in Guba, Cebu City, with an area of 4,000 square meters, more or less, and defined by specific boundaries. However, the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1305, issued later on November 15, 1990, indicated that Lot No. 11909 actually measured approximately 14,457 square meters. Procedural History: Following the sale, Carmen del Prado filed a petition with the RTC for the registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale under Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1529, seeking a certificate of title for the entire Lot No. 11909. The Caballeros opposed, asserting that only 4,000 square meters were sold and that the sale was not for a lump sum (cuerpo cierto). The RTC ruled in favor of del Prado, ordering the Register of Deeds to cancel OCT No. 1305 and issue a new title in del Prado's name for the entire lot. The Spouses Caballero appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC's decision, dismissing del del Prado's petition for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the remedy sought by del Prado was not provided under P.D. No. 1529 after the original registration had already been effected, and concluding that the RTC erred in assuming jurisdiction over the petition. This ruling by the CA is now the subject of the instant petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner Carmen del Prado seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution, arguing that the CA committed grave error in its findings of fact, in failing to rule that the sale was for a lump sum (cuerpo cierto), and in questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC. Del Prado contends that the deed of sale, specifying boundaries and using the phrase "more or less" regarding the area, signifies a lump sum sale under Article 1542 of the Civil Code, entitling her to the entire area within the stated boundaries, even if it exceeded the initially mentioned 4,000 square meters. She argues that the substantial excess area of 10,475 square meters is not a reasonable discrepancy and that the CA should have upheld the RTC's finding that the sale was indeed for a lump sum. The petition further questions the CA's procedural finding regarding the improper remedy, asserting that the RTC had jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave error in making findings of fact contrary to that of the trial court. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave error in failing to rule that the sale of the lot is for a lump sum or cuerpo cierto. Whether the lower court has jurisdiction over the petition for registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 11, 1990.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the Court of Appeals committed grave error in making findings of fact contrary to that of the trial court: The Supreme Court held that it was not committing an error in reviewing the facts in this instance, as it was necessary to resolve the substantial discrepancy in the area of the land sold. The Court stated that it was not a trier of facts in the ordinary sense but could lend credence to the respondents' claim after an assiduous scrutiny of the records. The Court found that the factual findings of the CA, which considered the substantial discrepancy and the parties' intent, were more in line with the evidence presented and the applicable law, particularly the exception to the rule on lump sum sales when the discrepancy is unreasonable. The Court's review was justified by the need to correct a perceived error in the RTC's factual determination regarding the nature and extent of the sale. On whether the sale of the lot is for a lump sum or cuerpo cierto: The Supreme Court, after scrutinizing the records, found that the parties intended to sell only 4,000 sq m of Lot No. 11909, contrary to the RTC's findings. While the deed of sale described the property with boundaries and stated an area of "4,000 square meters, more or less," and the total area of Lot No. 11909 was 14,457 sq m, the Court found the discrepancy of 10,475 sq m to be substantial and unreasonable. The Court clarified that the rule in Article 1542 of the Civil Code, which states that in sales for a lump sum, there shall be no increase or decrease in price despite a greater or lesser area, admits an exception for unreasonable discrepancies. The Court gave credence to the respondents' claim and the circumstances, including an ocular inspection where the petitioner pointed to a specific portion with mango trees and a well, and the subsequent segregation of the 4,000 sq m area by fencing. This indicated that the sale was not intended to cover the entire Lot No. 11909 as a cuerpo cierto, but rather a specific portion with an approximate area. On the issue of jurisdiction over the petition for registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the RTC committed an error in assuming jurisdiction over the "Petition for Registration of Document Under Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1529." The Court emphasized that a certificate of title, once registered and after one year from its entry, becomes incontrovertible. The remedy sought by the petitioner, a petition for registration of a document, is not provided under P.D. 1529 after original registration has been effected. Since the petitioner's action did not interrupt the prescriptive period for filing an appropriate petition for review, and the one-year period had expired, the decree of registration and the certificate of title in the respondents' names had become incontrovertible. Therefore, the lower court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for.
Main Doctrine
In the sale of real estate for a lump sum (cuerpo cierto), the boundaries stated in the contract control over the stated area. However, the rule on lump sum sales with a stated area 'more or less' admits an exception where the discrepancy in area is substantial and unreasonable, in which case the parties' actual intent and the circumstances surrounding the sale must be considered. Furthermore, a petition for registration of a document is not the proper remedy after an original registration has been effected and the decree has become incontrovertible.