Case Digest: SALINAS,CASTILLO v. SPOUSES FAUSTINO

DOLORES SALINAS, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, JUAN CASTILLO v.

SPOUSES BIENVENIDO S. FAUSTINO AND ILUMINADA G. FAUSTINO

566 SCRA 18 (2008)

In a contract of sale of land in a mass, the specific boundaries stated in the contract must control over any statement with respect to the area contained within its boundaries.

Bienvenido S. Faustino purchased from his several co-heirs, including Benjamin Salinas and Dolores Salinas, their respective shares to a parcel of land consisting of 1,381 sq. m.

Faustino and his wife filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against Salinas alleging that she is occupying part of former‘s land. Salinas contended that her signature on the Deed of Sale was forged and she paid the taxes due on the land she is occupying. The RTC dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC decision and concluded that Faustino owned only 753 sq. m. of the land.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a description of a lot area can be used as evidence for purchase and ownership of the lot

HELD:

Indeed, in a contract of sale of land in a mass, the specific boundaries stated in the contract must control over any statement with respect to the area contained within its boundaries. Thus, it is the boundaries indicated in a deed of absolute sale, and not the area in sq. m. mentioned therein 300.375 sq. m. in the Deed of Sale in respondents favor that control in the determination of which portion of the land a vendee acquires.

In concluding that Faustino acquired via the June 27, 1962 Deed of Sale the total land area of 753 sq. m., the Court of Appeals subtracted from the total land area of 1,381 sq. m. reflected in Exh. A, which is Plan of Lot 3, Block 5-k, Psd-8268, as prepared for Benjamin R. Salinas containing an area of 1,381 sq. m. and which was prepared on February 10, 1960 by a private land surveyor, the 628 sq. m. area of the lot claimed by Salinas as reflected in Tax Declaration No. 1017 in her name. As will be shown shortly, however, the basis of the appellate court‘s conclusion is erroneous.

As the immediately preceding paragraph reflects, the Plan of Lot 3, Bk 5-K, Psd-82 was prepared for Spouses Faustino and Salinas‘ first cousin co-heir Benjamin Salinas on February 10, 1960. Why the appellate court, after excluding the 628 sq. m. lot covered by a Tax Declaration in the name of petitioner from the 1,381 sq. m. lot surveyed for Benjamin P. Salinas in 1960, concluded that what was sold via the 1962 Deed of Sale to respondent Faustino was the remaining 753 sq. m., despite the clear provision of said Deed of Sale that what was conveyed was 300.375 sq. m., escapes comprehension. It defies logic, given that respondents base their claim of ownership of the questioned 628 sq. m. occupied by Salinas on that June 27, 1962 Deed of Sale covering a 300.375 sq. m. lot.

The Court of Appeals thus doubly erred in concluding that 1) what was sold to respondents via the June 27, 1962 Deed of Sale was the 1,381 sq. m. parcel of land reflected in the Plan-Exh. A prepared in 1960 for Benjamin Salinas, and 2) Salinas occupied 628 sq. m. portion thereof, hence, Spouses Fausto own the remaining 753 sq. m.