G.R. No. 169890 March 12, 2007 parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No.

by Tax Declaration No. 5,000-square meter portion of petitioners’

12081, and a 768-square meter parcel of land parcel of land sold to the Trinidad spouses
FELICIANO ESGUERRA, CANUTO ESGUERRA, covered by Tax Declaration No. 13989. which was assigned Lot No. 3591 actually
JUSTA ESGUERRA, ANGEL ESGUERRA, FIDELA measured 6,268 square meters.
ESGUERRA, CLARA ESGUERRA, and PEDRO The Esguerra spouses executed the necessary
ESGUERRA, Petitioners, Deed of Sale in favor of petitioners on August In a subsequent application for registration of
vs. 11, 1937,1 and that in favor of the Trinidad title over Lot No. 3591, docketed as Land
VIRGINIA TRINIDAD, PRIMITIVA TRINIDAD, and brothers on August 17, 1937.2 Both documents Registration Case No. N-335-V, the CFI, by
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MEYCAUAYAN, were executed before notary public Maximo Decision8 of August 21, 1972, awarded Lot No.
BULACAN, Respondents. Abaño. 3591 in favor of Eulalio Trinidad. Pursuant to
the Decision, the LRC issued Decree No. N-
DECISION Eulalio Trinidad later sold his share of the land 149491 by virtue of which the Register of Deeds
to his daughters-respondents herein, via a of Bulacan issued OCT No. 0-64989 in the name
CARPIO MORALES, J.: notarized Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan ng of Trinidad.
Lupa3 dated October 13, 1965. A portion of the
Involved in the present controversy are two land consisting of 1,693 square meters was later Upon the death of the Trinidad spouses, Lot No.
parcels of land located in Camalig, Meycauayan, assigned Lot No. 3593 during a cadastral survey 3591 covered by OCT No. 0-6498 was
Bulacan. conducted in the late 1960s. transmitted to respondents by succession.

Felipe Esguerra and Praxedes de Vera (Esguerra On respondents’ application for registration of Petitioners, alleging that upon verification with
spouses) were the owners of several parcels of title, the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of the LRA they discovered the issuance of the
land in Camalig, Meycauayan, Bulacan – among Bulacan, by Decision4 of February 20, 1967, above-stated two OCTs, filed on August 29,
them a 35,284-square meter parcel of land awarded Lot No. 3593 in their favor in Land 1994 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
covered by Tax Declaration No. 10374, half of Registration Case No. N-323-V. Pursuant to the Malolos, Bulacan two separate complaints for
which (17,642 square meters) they sold to their Decision, the Land Registration Commission their nullification on the ground that they were
grandchildren, herein petitioners Feliciano, (LRC, now the Land Registration Authority procured through fraud or misrepresentation.
Canuto, Justa, Angel, Fidela, Clara and Pedro, all [LRA]) issued Decree No. N-114039 by virtue of
surnamed Esguerra; and a 23,989-square meter which the Register of Deeds of Bulacan issued In the first complaint, docketed as Civil Case No.
OCT No. 0-36315 in the name of respondents. 737-M-94, petitioners sought the cancellation
parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. of OCT No. 0-3631.
12080, 23,489 square meters of which they also Meanwhile, under a notarized Bilihan ng
sold to petitioners, and the remaining 500 Lupa6 dated November 10, 1958, petitioners In the other complaint, docketed as Civil Case
square meters they sold to their other sold to respondents’ parents Eulalio Trinidad No. 738-M-94, petitioners sought the
grandchildren, the brothers Eulalio and Julian and Damiana Rodeadilla (Trinidad spouses) a cancellation of OCT No. 0-6498.
Trinidad (Trinidad brothers). portion of about 5,000 square meters of the
23,489-square meter of land which they Both cases were consolidated and tried before
Also sold to the Trinidad brothers were a 7,048- previously acquired from the Esguerra spouses.7 Branch 79 of the RTC which, after trial,
square meter parcel of land covered by Tax dismissed the cases by Joint Decision10 of May
Declaration No. 9059, a 4,618-square meter During the same cadastral survey conducted in 15, 1997.
the late 1960s, it was discovered that the about
Page 1 of 5
Their appeal with the Court of Appeals having excusable mistake behind the omission to . . . Appellant Pedro Esguerra even testified that
been dismissed by Decision of February 28, submit the same. he does not know how appellees were able to
2005, a reconsideration of which was, by secure a title over the lot in question and that
Resolution of October 3, 2005,11 denied, This Court has strictly enforced the requirement they never sold Lot No. 3593 to Virginia
petitioners filed the instant petition. of verification and certification, obedience to Trinidad since it is part of the whole lot of
which and to other procedural rules is needed if 23,489 square meters. The said testimony is a
Petitioners fault the appellate court fair results are to be expected mere conclusion on the part of appellants. On
14 the other hand, the evidence shows that
therefrom. While exceptional cases have been
1. . . . in misappreciating the fact that considered to correct patent injustice appellees acquired title over the subject
the act of the respondent Eulalio concomitant to a liberal application of the rules property by virtue of a deed of sale executed by
Trinidad in acquiring the property from of procedure, there should be an effort on the their father Eulalio Trinidad in their favor.
Felipe Esguerra constituted fraud. part of the party invoking liberality to advance a
reasonable or meritorious explanation for his xxxx NO FRAUD

2. . . . in the [i]nterpretation and failure to comply with the rules.15 In petitioners’

application of the provisions of Article case, no such explanation has been advanced. [T]hey failed to establish that appellees’
1542 of the New Civil Code. acquisition of the certificate of title is
With regard to petitioners’ failure to attach fraudulent. In fact, in their two complaints,
3. . . . in ruling that there is prescription, material portions of the record in support of the appellants acknowledged that appellees
res judicata, and violation of the non- petition, this requirement is not a mere observed and took the initial procedural steps
[forum] shopping.12 technicality but an essential requisite for the in the registration of the land, thus ruling out
determination of prima facie basis for giving fraud in the acquisition of the certificate of title.
In their Comment, respondents assailed the due course to the petition.16 As a rule, a petition . . .19
petition as lacking verification and certification which lacks copies of essential pleadings and
against forum shopping and failing to attach to portions of the case record may be dismissed. Factual findings of the trial court, when
it an affidavit of service and material portions of Much discretion is left to the reviewing court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final,
the record in support thereof. Petitioners however, to determine the necessity for such conclusive and binding on this Court,20 which is
counter that the procedural deficiencies have copies as the exact nature of the pleadings and not a trier of facts,21 hence, bereft of function
been mooted by the filing of a Compliance. portions of the case record which must under Rule 45 to examine and weigh the
accompany a petition is not specified.17 probative value of the evidence presented,22 its
A check of the rollo shows that attached to the jurisdiction being limited only to the review and
petition are an Affidavit of Service dated At all events, technicality aside, the petition revision of errors of law.23 Albeit there are
November 21, 2005 and the appellate court’s must be denied. exceptions24 to this rule, the cases at bar do not
Decision of February 28, 2005 and Resolution of fall thereunder, there being no showing that the
October 3, 2005; and that on January 16, 2006 It is settled that fraud is a question of fact and trial and appellate courts overlooked matters
or almost three months following the last day to the circumstances constituting the same must which, if considered, would alter their outcome.
file the petition, petitioners submitted, not at be alleged and proved in the court below.18
their own instance,13 a Verification and Sworn Under the Torrens System, an OCT enjoys a
Certification on Non-Forum Shopping signed by In the present cases, as did the trial court, the presumption of validity, which correlatively
petitioner Pedro Esguerra who cited honest and appellate court found no fraud in respondents’ carries a strong presumption that the provisions
acquisition and registration of the land, viz: of the law governing the registration of land
Page 2 of 5
 FRAUD MUST BE
SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
which led to its issuance have been duly In sales involving real estate, the parties may greater or less areas or number than that stated
followed.25 Fraud being a serious charge, it must choose between two types of pricing in the contract. . . .
be supported by clear and convincing agreement: a unit price contract wherein the
proof.26 Petitioners failed to discharge the purchase price is determined by way of xxxx
burden of proof, however. INTERPRETATION AND reference to a stated rate per unit area (e.g.,
APPLICATIOIN OF ART. 1542 ₱1,000 per square meter), or a lump sum Where both the area and the boundaries of the
On the questioned interpretation and contract which states a full purchase price for immovable are declared, the area covered
application by the appellate court of Article an immovable the area of which may be within the boundaries of the immovable
1542 of the Civil Code reading: declared based on an estimate or where both prevails over the stated area. In cases of conflict
the area and boundaries are stated (e.g., ₱1 between areas and boundaries, it is the latter
In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum million for 1,000 square meters, etc.). In Rudolf which should prevail. What really defines a
and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of Lietz, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,27 the Court piece of ground is not the area, calculated with
measure or number, there shall be no increase discussed the distinction: more or less certainty, mentioned in its
or decrease of the price, although there be a description, but the boundaries therein laid
greater or less areas or number than that stated . . . In a unit price contract, the statement of down, as enclosing the land and indicating its
in the contract. area of immovable is not conclusive and the limits. In a contract of sale of land in a mass, it is
price may be reduced or increased depending well established that the specific boundaries
The same rule shall be applied when two or on the area actually delivered. If the vendor stated in the contract must control over any
more immovables are sold for a single price; but delivers less than the area agreed upon, the statement with respect to the area contained
if, besides mentioning the boundaries, which is vendee may oblige the vendor to deliver all that within its boundaries. It is not of vital
indispensable in every conveyance of real may be stated in the contract or demand for the consequence that a deed or contract of sale of
estate, its area or number should be designated proportionate reduction of the purchase price if land should disclose the area with mathematical
in the contract, the vendor shall be bound to delivery is not possible. If the vendor delivers accuracy. It is sufficient if its extent is
deliver all that is included within said more than the area stated in the contract, the objectively indicated with sufficient precision to
boundaries, even when it exceeds the area or vendee has the option to accept only the enable one to identify it. An error as to the
number specified in the contract; and, should amount agreed upon or to accept the whole superficial area is immaterial. Thus, the
he not be able to do so, he shall suffer a area, provided he pays for the additional area at obligation of the vendor is to deliver everything
reduction in the price, in proportion to what is the contract rate. within the boundaries, inasmuch as it is the
lacking in the area or number, unless the entirety thereof that distinguishes the
contract is rescinded because the vendee does xxxx determinate object.28 (Emphasis and
not accede to the failure to deliver what has underscoring supplied)
been stipulated. (Emphasis and underscoring In the case where the area of the immovable is
supplied), stated in the contract based on an estimate, the The courts below correctly characterized the
actual area delivered may not measure up sale of Lot No. 3591 as one involving a lump
while petitioners admittedly sold Lot No. 3591 exactly with the area stated in the contract. sum contract. The Bilihan ng Lupa shows that
to the Trinidad spouses, they contend that what According to Article 1542 of the Civil Code, in the parties agreed on the purchase price of
they sold were only 5,000 square meters and the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum ₱1,000.00 on a predetermined, albeit
not 6,268 square meters, and thus claim the and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of unsurveyed, area of 5,000 square meters and
excess of 1,268 square meters. measure or number, there shall be no increase not on a particular rate per unit area. As noted
or decrease of the price, although there be a
Page 3 of 5
by the Court of Appeals, the identity of the contemporaneous circumstances. Citing change actions still necessarily fail since petitioners
realty was sufficiently described as riceland: in the physical nature of the property, it was failed to establish the existence of fraud.
therein established that the excess area at the
It is clear from the afore-quoted Bilihan ng southern portion was a product of reclamation, A word on Republic Act No. 716034 which was
Lupa that what appellants sold to Eulalio was which explained why the land’s technical raised by petitioners in their petition. It
the "bahaging palayan." Though measured as description in the deed of sale indicated the expressly requires the parties to undergo a
5,000 square meters, more or less, such seashore as its southern boundary, hence, the conciliation process under the Katarungang
measurement is only an approximation, and not inclusion of the reclaimed area was declared Pambarangay, as a precondition to filing a
an exact measurement. Moreover, we take unreasonable. complaint in court,35 non-compliance with this
note of the fact that the said deed of sale condition precedent does not prevent a court of
mentioned the boundaries covering the whole In OCT No. 0-6498, the increase by a fourth of a competent jurisdiction from exercising its
area of 33,489 square meters, including the fraction of the area indicated in the deed of sale power of adjudication over a case unless the
"bahaging palayan." Had appellants intended to cannot be considered as an unreasonable defendants object thereto. The objection
sell only a portion of the "bahaging palayan," excess. Most importantly, the circumstances should be seasonably made before the court
they could have stated the specific area in the attendant to the inclusion of the excess area first taking cognizance of the complaint, and
deed of sale and not the entire "bahaging bare nothing atypical or significant to hint at must be raised in the Answer or in such other
palayan" . . . .29 unreasonableness. It must be noted that the pleading allowed under the Rules of Court.36
land was not yet technically surveyed at the
In fine, under Article 1542, what is controlling is time of the sale. As vendors who themselves While petitioners admittedly failed to comply
the entire land included within the boundaries, executed the Bilihan ng Lupa, petitioners may with the requirement of barangay conciliation,
regardless of whether the real area should be rightly be presumed to have acquired a good they assert that respondents waived such
greater or smaller than that recited in the deed. estimate of the value and area of the bahaging objection when they failed to raise it in their
This is particularly true since the area of the palayan. TIME BARRED Answer. Contrary to petitioners’ claim,
land in OCT No. 0-6498 was described in the however, the records reveal that respondents
deed as "humigit kumulang," that is, more or As for the last assigned error, the appellate raised their objection in their Amended
less.30 court, in finding that the complaints were time- Answers37 filed in both cases.
barred, noted that when the complaints were
A caveat is in order, however. The use of "more filed in 1994, more than 27 years had elapsed IN FINE, it is a fundamental principle in land
or less" or similar words in designating quantity from the issuance of OCT No. 0-3631 and more registration that a certificate of title serves as
covers only a reasonable excess or deficiency. A than 20 years from the issuance of OCT No. 0- evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible
vendee of land sold in gross or with the 6498. The prescriptive period of one (1) year title to the property in favor of the person
description "more or less" with reference to its had thus set in.1awphi1.nét whose name appears therein. Such
area does not thereby ipso facto take all risk of indefeasibility commences after the lapse or
quantity in the land.31 Petitioners’ reliance on Agne v. Director of expiration of one year from the date of entry of
Lands33 is misplaced since the cancellation of the decree of registration when all persons are
Numerical data are not of course the sole gauge title was predicated not on the ground of fraud considered to have a constructive notice of the
of unreasonableness of the excess or deficiency but on want of jurisdiction. Even assuming that title to the property. After the lapse of one
in area. Courts must consider a host of other petitioners’ actions are in the nature of a suit year, therefore, title to the property can no
factors. In one case,32 the Court found for quieting of title, which is imprescriptible, the longer be contested. This system was so
substantial discrepancy in area due to effected in order to quiet title to land.38
Page 4 of 5
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The
assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals are AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Page 5 of 5