Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-24732 April 30, 1968
PO SAN MELL!A, petitioner,
vs.
CT" O# LOLO, UN$ERST" O# T%E P%LPPNES &'( T%E COURT APPEALS,
respondents.
Cornelio P. Ravena for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.
)ENG!ON, *.P., J.:
Juliana Melliza during her lifetie o!ned, aong other properties, three parcels of
residential land in "loilo Cit# registered in her nae under $riginal Certificate of %itle
No. &'(). *aid parcels of land !ere +no!n as ,ots Nos. ), - and .).'. %he total area
of ,ot No. .).' !as )/,01& s2uare eters.
$n Noveber )1, ./&. she donated to the then Municipalit# of "loilo, /,000 s2uare
eters of ,ot .).', to serve as site for the unicipal hall.
.
%he donation !as ho!ever
revo+ed b# the parties for the reason that the area donated !as found inade2uate to
eet the re2uireents of the developent plan of the unicipalit#, the so3called
4Arellano Plan4.
)
*ubse2uentl#, ,ot No. .).' !as divided b# Certeza *urve#ing Co., "nc. into ,ots .).'3
A and .).'3B. And still later, ,ot .).'3B !as further divided into ,ots .).'3B3., ,ot
.).'3B3) and ,ot .).'3B3&. As approved b# the Bureau of ,ands, ,ot .).'3B3. !ith
',-() s2uare eters, becae +no!n as ,ot .).'3B5 ,ot .).'3B3), !ith (,(-& s2uare
eters, !as designated as ,ot .).'3C5 and ,ot .).'3B3.&, !ith ',.&- s2uare eters,
becae ,ot .).'36.
$n Noveber .-, ./&) Juliana Melliza e7ecuted an instruent !ithout an# caption
containing the follo!ing8
9ue en consideracion a la sua total de *E"* M", C:A%R$ C"EN%$*
;E"N%"6$* PE*$* <P(,')).00=, oneda filipina 2ue por la presente declaro
haber recibido a i entera satisfaccion del >obierno Municipal de "loilo, cedo
# traspaso en venta real # difinitiva a dicho >obierno Municipal de "loilo los
lotes # porciones de los isos 2ue a continuacion se especifican a saber8 el
lote No. - en toda su e7tension5 una porcion de 1((/ etros cuadrados del
lote No. ), cu#a porcion esta designada coo sub3lotes Nos. )3B # )3C del
piano de subdivision de dichos lotes preparado por la Certeza *urve#ing Co.,
"nc., # una porcion de .0,1?? etros cuadrados del lote No. .).' @ cu#a
porcion esta designada coo sub3lotes Nos. .).'3B3) # .).'3B3& del iso
plano de subdivision.
Asiiso nago constar 2ue la cesion # traspaso 2ue ariba se encionan es
de venta difinitiva, # 2ue para la eAor identificacion de los lotes # porciones
de los isos 2ue son obAeto de la presente, hago constar 2ue dichos lotes #
porciones son los 2ue necesita el >obierno Municipal de "loilo para la
construccion de avenidas, par2ues # Cit# Ball site del Municipal >overnent
Center de iloilo, segun el plano Arellano.
$n Januar# .', ./&? Juliana Melliza sold her reaining interest in ,ot .).' to
Reedios *ian ;illanueva !ho thereafter obtained her o!n registered title thereto,
under %ransfer Certificate of %itle No. .?.1?. Reedios in turn on Noveber ', ./'(
transferred her rights to said portion of land to Pio *ian Melliza, !ho obtained %ransfer
Certificate of %itle No. )'/) thereover in his nae. Annotated at the bac+ of Pio *ian
MellizaCs title certificate !as the follo!ing8
... <a= that a portion of .0,1?? s2uare eters of ,ot .).' no! designated as
,ots Nos. .).'3B3) and .).'3B3& of the subdivision plan belongs to the
Municipalit# of "loilo as per instruent dated Noveber .-, ./&)....
$n August )', ./'/ the Cit# of "loilo, !hich succeeded to the Municipalit# of "loilo,
donated the cit# hall site together !ith the building thereon, to the :niversit# of the
Philippines <"loilo branch=. %he site donated consisted of ,ots Nos. .).'3B, .).'3C and
.).'36, !ith a total area of .-,&-0 s2uare eters, ore or less.
*oetie in ./-), the :niversit# of the Philippines enclosed the site donated !ith a
!ire fence. Pio *ian Melliza thereupon ade representations, thru his la!#er, !ith the
cit# authorities for pa#ent of the value of the lot <,ot .).'3B=. No recover# !as
obtained, because as alleged b# plaintiff, the Cit# did not have funds <p. /, AppellantCs
Brief.=
%he :niversit# of the Philippines, ean!hile, obtained %ransfer Certificate of %itle No.
1.-) covering the three lots, Nos. .).'3B, .).'3C and .).'36.
1
$n 6eceber .0, ./-- Pio *ian Melliza filed an action in the Court of Dirst "nstance of
"loilo against "loilo Cit# and the :niversit# of the Philippines for recover# of ,ot .).'3B
or of its value.
%he defendants ans!ered, contending that ,ot .).'3B !as included in the public
instruent e7ecuted b# Juliana Melliza in favor of "loilo unicipalit# in ./&). After
stipulation of facts and trial, the Court of Dirst "nstance rendered its decision on August
.-, ./-1, disissing the coplaint. *aid court ruled that the instruent e7ecuted b#
Juliana Melliza in favor of "loilo unicipalit# included in the conve#ance ,ot .).'3B. "n
support of this conclusion, it referred to the portion of the instruent stating8
Asiiso hago constar 2ue la cesion # traspaso 2ue arriba se encionan es
de venta difinitiva, # 2ue para la aAor identificacion de los lotes # porciones
de los isos 2ue son obAeto de la presente, hago constar 2ue dichos lotes #
porciones son los 2ue necesita el >obierno unicipal de "loilo para la
construccion de avenidas, par2ues # Cit# Ball site del Municipal >overnent
Center de "loilo, segun el plano Arellano.
and ruled that this eant that Juliana Melliza not onl# sold ,ots .).'3C and .).'36 but
also such other portions of lots as were necessary for the municipal hall site, such as
Lot 121!". #nd thus it held that $loilo City had the ri%ht to donate Lot 121!" to the
:.P.
Pio *ian Melliza appealed to the Court of Appeals. "n its decision on Ma# ./, ./(-, the
Court of Appeals affired the interpretation of the Court of Dirst "nstance, that the
portion of ,ot .).' sold b# Juliana Melliza !as not liited to the .0,1?? s2uare eters
specificall# entioned but included !hatever !as needed for the construction of
avenues, par+s and the cit# hall site. Nonetheless, it ordered the reand of the case for
reception of evidence to deterine the area actuall# ta+en b# "loilo Cit# for the
construction of avenues, par+s and for cit# hall site.
%he present appeal therefro !as then ta+en to :s b# Pio *ian Melliza. Appellant
aintains that the public instruent is clear that onl# ,ots Nos. .).'3C and .).'36
!ith a total area of .0,1?? s2uare eters !ere the portions of ,ot .).' included in the
sale5 that the purpose of the second paragraph, relied upon for a contrar#
interpretation, !as onl# to better identif# the lots sold and none other5 and that to follo!
the interpretation accorded the deed of sale b# the Court of Appeals and the Court of
Dirst "nstance !ould render the contract invalid because the la! re2uires as an
essential eleent of sale, a 4deterinate4 obAect <Art. .''-, no! .''?, Civil Code=.
Appellees, on the other hand, contend that the present appeal iproperl# raises onl#
2uestions of fact. And, further, the# argue that the parties to the docuent in 2uestion
reall# intended to include ,ot .).'3B therein, as sho!n b# the silence of the vendor
after "loilo Cit# e7ercised o!nership thereover5 that not to include it !ould have been
absurd, because said lot is contiguous to the others adittedl# included in the
conve#ance, l#ing directl# in front of the cit# hall, separating that building fro ,ots
.).'3C and .).'36, !hich !ere included therein. And, finall#, appellees argue that the
saleCs obAect !as deterinate, because it could be ascertained, at the tie of the
e7ecution of the contract, !hat lots !ere needed b# "loilo unicipalit# for avenues,
par+s and cit# hall site 4according to the Arellano Plan4, since the Arellano plan !as
then alread# in e7istence.
%he appeal before :s calls for the interpretation of the public instruent dated
Noveber .-, ./&). And interpretation of such contract involves a 2uestion of la!,
since the contract is in the nature of la! as bet!een the parties and their successors3
in3interest.
At the outset, it is !ell to ar+ that the issue is !hether or not the conve#ance b#
Juliana Melliza to "loilo unicipalit# included that portion of ,ot .).' +no!n as ,ot
.).'3B. "f not, then the sae !as included, in the instruent subse2uentl# e7ecuted
b# Juliana Melliza of her reaining interest in ,ot .).' to Reedios *ian ;illanueva,
!ho in turn sold !hat she thereunder had ac2uired, to Pio *ian Melliza. "t should be
stressed, also, that the sale to Reedios *ian ;illanueva @ fro !hich Pio *ian
Melliza derived title @ did not specifically desi%nate Lot 121!", &ut only such portions
of Lot 121 as were not included in the previous sale to $loilo municipality <*tipulation of
Dacts, par. -, Record on Appeal, p. )&=. And thus, if said ,ot .).'3B had been included
in the prior conve#ance to "loilo unicipalit#, then it !as e7cluded fro the sale to
Reedios *ian ;illanueva and, later, to Pio *ian Melliza.
%he point at issue here is then the true intention of the parties as to the obAect of the
public instruent E7hibit 464. *aid issue revolves on the paragraph of the public
instruent afore2uoted and its purpose, i.e., !hether it !as intended erel# to further
describe the lots alread# specificall# entioned, or !hether it !as intended to cover
other lots not #et specificall# entioned.
Dirst of all, there is no 2uestion that the paraount intention of the parties !as to
provide "loilo unicipalit# !ith lots sufficient or ade2uate in area for the construction of
the "loilo Cit# hall site, !ith its avenues and par+s. Dor this atter, a previous donation
for this purpose bet!een the sae parties !as revo+ed b# the, because of
inade2uac# of the area of the lot donated.
*econdl#, reading the public instruent in toto, !ith special reference to the
paragraphs describing the lots included in the sale, sho!s that said instruent
describes four parcels of land b# their lot nubers and area5 and then it goes on to
further describe, not onl# those lots alread# entioned, but the lots o&'ect of the sale,
b# stating that said lots are the ones needed for the construction of the cit# hall site,
2
avenues and par+s accordin% to the #rellano plan. "f the parties intended erel# to
cover the specified lots @ ,ots ), -, .).'3C and .).'36, there !ould scarcel# have
been an# need for the ne7t paragraph, since these lots are alread# plainl# and ver#
clearl# described b# their respective lot nuber and area. *aid ne7t paragraph does
not reall# add to the clear description that !as alread# given to the in the previous
one.
"t is therefore the ore reasonable interpretation, to vie! it as descri&in% those other
portions of land conti%uous to the lots aforementioned that, b# reference to the Arellano
plan, !ill be found needed for the purpose at hand, the construction of the cit# hall site.
Appellant ho!ever challenges this vie! on the ground that the description of said other
lots in the afore2uoted second paragraph of the public instruent !ould thereb# be
legall# insufficient, because the obAect !ould allegedl# not be deterinate as re2uired
b# la!.
*uch contention fails on several counts. %he re2uireent of the la! that a sale ust
have for its obAect a deterinate thing, is fulfilled as long as, at the tie the contract is
entered into, the obAect of the sale is capable of being ade deterinate !ithout the
necessit# of a ne! or further agreeent bet!een the parties <Art. .)1&, old Civil Code5
Art. .'(0, Ne! Civil Code=. %he specific ention of soe of the lots plus the stateent
that the lots obAect of the sale are the ones needed for cit# hall site, avenues and par+s,
accordin% to the #rellano plan, sufficientl# provides a basis, as of the tie of the
e7ecution of the contract, for rendering deterinate said lots !ithout the need of a ne!
and further agreeent of the parties.
%he Arellano plan !as in e7istence as earl# as ./)?. As stated, the previous donation
of land for cit# hall site on Noveber )1, ./&. !as revo+ed on March (, ./&) for being
inade2uate in area under said Arellano plan. Appellant clais that although said plan
e7isted, its etes and bounds !ere not fi7ed until ./&-, and thus it could not be a basis
for deterining the lots sold on Noveber .-, ./&). Appellant ho!ever fails to consider
that the area needed under that plan for cit# hall site !as then alread# +no!n5 that the
specific ention of soe of the lots covered b# the sale in effect fi7ed the
corresponding location of the cit# hall site under the plan5 that, therefore, considering
the said lots specificall# entioned in the public instruent E7hibit 464, and the
proAected cit# hall site, !ith its area, as then sho!n in the Arellano plan <E7hibit )=, it
could be deterined !hich, and ho! uch of the portions of land contiguous to those
specificall# naed, !ere needed for the construction of the cit# hall site.
And, oreover, there is no 2uestion either that ,ot .).'3B is contiguous to ,ots .).'3C
and .).'36, adittedl# covered b# the public instruent. "t is stipulated that, after
e7ecution of the contract E7hibit 464, the Municipalit# of "loilo possessed it together !ith
the other lots sold. "t sits practicall# in the heart of the cit# hall site. Durtherore, Pio
*ian Melliza, fro the stipulation of facts, !as the notar# public of the public
instruent. As such, he !as a!are of its ters. *aid instruent !as also registered
!ith the Register of 6eeds and such registration !as annotated at the bac+ of the
corresponding title certificate of Juliana Melliza. Dro these stipulated facts, it can be
inferred that Pio *ian Melliza +ne! of the aforesaid ters of the instruent or is
chargeable !ith +no!ledge of the5 that +no!ing so, he should have e7ained the
Arellano plan in relation to the public instruent E7hibit 4645 that, furtherore, he
should have ta+en notice of the possession first b# the Municipalit# of "loilo, then b# the
Cit# of "loilo and later b# the :niversit# of the Philippines of ,ot .).'3B as part of the
cit# hall site conve#ed under that public instruent, and raised proper obAections
thereto if it !as his position that the sae !as not included in the sae. %he fact
reains that, instead, for twenty lon% years, Pio *ian Melliza and his predecessors3in3
interest, did not obAect to said possession, nor e7ercise an# act of possession over ,ot
.).'3B. Appl#ing, therefore, principles of civil la!, as !ell as laches, estoppel, and
e2uit#, said lot ust necessaril# be deeed included in the conve#ance in favor of "loilo
unicipalit#, no! "loilo Cit#.
EBERED$RE, the decision appealed fro is affired insofar as it affirs that of the
Court of Dirst "nstance, and the coplaint in this case is disissed. No costs. *o
ordered.
3