DEL PRADO v SPS.
CABALLERO - Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the ruling of the
G.R. No. 148225 | March 3, 2010
FACTS
- In a judgment rendered on February 1, 1985 in a cadastral
case, Judge Reyes of RTC Cebu adjudicated in favor of the
spouses Caballero several parcels of land in Cebu, including
Cadastral lot No. 11909
- Antonio Caballero moved for the final decree of the
registration of the lots
- The same court, through Judge Ducadao, ordered the
National Land, Titles and Deeds Registration Admission to
issue the decree of registration and the corresponding titles
of the lots in favor of the spouses
- On June 11, 1990, the spouses sold to Carmel Del Prado Lot
No. 11909 on the basis of a tax declaration covering the
property
o The Original Certificate of Title coverin the lot was
issued only on November 15, 1990 and entered into
registration on December 19, 1990
o Therein, the technical description of the lot is about
14,457 sqm
- On March 20, 1991, Del Prado filed in the same cadastral
proceedings a Petition for Registration of the Document
under PD 1529 in order that a certificate of title be issued
in her name
o In the petition, Del Prado alleged that the sale was
for a lump sum, in which case, the vendor was bound
to deliver all that was included within the said
boundaries even when it exceeded the area specified
in the contract
o Respondents opposed, saying only 4000 sqm was
sold
- The RTC ruled that Del Prado established a clear and
positive right over the lot, that the sale was for a lump sum,
and the subject matter of the sale was the parcel of land and
not a portion threof
RTC
Issue
W/N the sale of the land is for a lump sum – NO
Ratio
- The deed of sale is not one of a unit price contract because
the parties agreed on a purchase price of P40,000 for a
predetermined area of 4,000 sqm, more or less, bounded by
specific boundaries
- In a contract of sale of land in a mass, the specific
boundaries stated in the contract must control over any
other statement, with respect to the area contained within
the boundaries
- Esguerra v Trinindad
o In sales involving real estate, the parties may choose
between two types of pricing agreement: a unit price
contract(purchase price is determined by way of
reference to a stated rate per unit area) or a lump
sum contract(states a full purchase price for an
immovable, the area of which may be declared based
on the estimate or where both the area and
boundaries are stated)
- Petitioner is not entitled to have the certificate of transfer
covering the whole lot No. 11909 transferred to her name
- Respondents only intended to sell 4,000 sqm.
o This can be seen from the records which reveal that
when the parties made an ocular inspection,
petitioner specifically pointed to that portion of the
lot whichc she preferred to purchase, since there
were mango trees planted and a deep well thereon
o After the sale, respondents delivered and segregated
the area of 4,000 sqm in favor of petition by fencing
off the area of 10,475 sqm belonging to them
- Since the certificate of transfer was issued in favor of the
spouses, and their names appear therein, they have the title
 to the land in question, and it serves as evidence of an
indefeasible and incontrovertible title
- Such indefeasibility commences after one year from date of
entry of the decree of registration
- Since the one year period had already prescribed, the title
became incontrovertible and can no longer be contested