Garcia v. Velasco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 1, 1929, Florentino Garcia, as guardian of minors, leased a fish pond to Paz E. Velasco for ten years at an annual rental of P750. On May 22, 1931, with court authority, he sold the fish pond to Velasco for P14,000. Procedural History: Emiliano E. Garcia, the substituted guardian, was ordered by the court to file an action to recover the purchase price. The action was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The defendant objected to the court's jurisdiction over her person and the subject matter. The trial court dismissed the action on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and payment. The plaintiff appealed. The Petition: The plaintiff-appellant seeks to recover the purchase price of the fish pond.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and the subject matter of the action. Whether the defendant is entitled to an equitable reduction in the purchase price due to a deficiency in the area of the fish pond sold.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is reversed. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of P3,824, with costs against her.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the trial court erred in sustaining the defendant's objection to jurisdiction. The action was for the recovery of the purchase price, which is a personal action, not one concerning the performance of official duties of a guardian. Therefore, the venue was correctly laid in Manila, where the plaintiff guardian resides, as per the rule allowing personal actions to be filed where the defendant or plaintiff resides. The fact that the guardian was appointed by the Court of First Instance of Bulacan does not preclude his residence in Manila, which was alleged and not directly denied. On Issue 2: The Court found no ground to disturb the trial court's findings on payment but ruled on the legal issue of price reduction. Applying Article 1471 of the Civil Code, which states that in sales of real estate for a lump sum, the price is not increased or decreased even if the area is more or less than stated, the Court found that the transaction was for a lump sum. Although the deficiency in area was significant (practically one-fourth), the Court inferred that the purchaser intended to take the risk of the quantity. Having been a lessee of the fish pond for two years prior to the purchase, the defendant could have assessed its value and area, thus her purchase was premised on this knowledge. Consequently, she could not claim an equitable reduction in the purchase price.
Main Doctrine
In the sale of real estate for a lump sum and not at a specified price per unit of measure, the price remains fixed regardless of whether the area is more or less than stated in the contract, unless the deficiency is so great as to infer gross mistake, in which case equitable relief may be granted. However, if the purchaser had prior possession and knowledge of the area, they are presumed to have accepted the risk of quantity.