Makro V Coco and Lim Digest

GR.N.
196419 Pilipinas Makro v Coco Charcoal and Lim Kim San

Nature: Complaint to collect refunds filed by Makro against both
defendants under his right in the deed of absolute sale.
Facts:
 Makro wanted to acquire real properties in Davao to establish a
business presence in the city and found two parcels of land owned by
defendants.
 On November 1999, Makro and the defendants executed 2 notarized
Deeds of Absolute sale containing identical provisions wherein the
latter would sell their parcels of land with a total area of 1000 sqm
covered by separate TCTs for the amount of P8.5m each.
(Defendant’s lands are contiguous and parallel to each other).
 On December 1999, Makro employed a geodetic engineer to resurvey
the adjacent lots, it was discovered that 131 sqm and 130 sqm from
Coco and Lim’s land respectively, were encroached by the DPWH for
a road widening project.
 Makro demanded to collect a refund of the purchase price
corresponding the area encroached, seeking to recover 1,113,500 and
1,105,000 due the difference of area in the actual sale.
 RTC granted Makro’s Petition and imposed a judgment requiring
defendants to pay 1.5m each to Makro instead of those in the prayers
of Makro.
 CA reversed and said that Sec. 4 (i) of the Absolute Deed of Sale was
akin to a warranty of eviction under Art. 1548 of the NCC that only a
buyer in good faith may avail of it. Further stating that Makro could not
feign ignorance because it was apparent that there was a road
widening project.
 Makro moved for MR but was denied, thus this present petition.
Issue: WON Sec. 4 (i) of the ADoS was akin to a warranty of eviction (NO)
and granting that it was, WON Makro was in good faith and may avail of it.
(YES)
Holding: Petition is Granted, CA decision reversed and set aside. Makro is
entitled to recover the prayed amount from respondents.
Ratio
First Issue: In addressing the issues of the present case, the following
provisions of the deeds of sale between Makro and respondents are
pertinent:
Section 2. General Investigation and Relocation. —
Upon the execution of this Deed, the BUYER shall undertake at its own
expense a general investigation and relocation of their lots which shall be
conducted by a surveyor mutually acceptable to both parties. Should there
be any discrepancy between the actual areas of the lots as re-surveyed and
the areas as indicated in their Transfer Certificates of Title, the Purchase
Price shall be adjusted correspondingly at the rate of PESOS: EIGHT
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (Php8,500.000) per square meter.
xxxxx
In any case of discrepancy, be it more or less than the actual area of the
Property as specified in the Titles, the SELLER agrees to make the
necessary correction of the title covering the lots before the same is
transferred to the BUYER.
Section 4. Representations and Warranties. —
The SELLER hereby represents and warrants to the BUYER
that:
i. The Property is and shall continue to be free and clear of all
easements, liens and encumbrances of any nature whatsoever, and is,
and shall continue to be, not subject to any claim set-off or defense which
will prevent the BUYER from obtaining full and absolute ownership and
possession over the Property or from developing or using it as a site for its
store building.
Thus, the CA erred in treating Section 4 (i) of the deeds of sale as
akin to an implied warranty against eviction. First, the deeds of sale
categorically state that the sellers assure that the properties sold were
free from any encumbrances which may prevent Makro from fully
and absolutely possessing the properties in question. Second, in
order for the implied warranty against eviction to be enforceable, the
following requisites must concur:
(a) there must be a final judgment;
(b) the purchaser has been deprived of the whole or part of the thing
sold;
(c) said deprivation was by virtue of a prior right to the sale made by
the vendor; and
(d) the vendor has been summoned and made co-defendant in the
suit for eviction at the instance of the vendee.
Evidently, there was no final judgment and no opportunity for the
vendors to have been summoned precisely because no judicial action was
instituted.
A warranty is a collateral undertaking in a sale of either real or personal
property, express or implied; that if the property sold does not possess
certain incidents or qualities, the purchaser may either consider the sale
void or claim damages for breach of warranty. Thus, a warranty may either
be express or implied.
An express warranty pertains to any affirmation of fact or any promise by
the seller relating to the thing, the natural tendency of which is to induce the
buyer to purchase the same. It includes all warranties derived from the
language of the contract, so long as the language is express — it may
take the form of an affirmation, a promise or a representation
An implied warranty is one which the law derives by application or inference
from the nature of transaction or the relative situation or circumstances of
the parties, irrespective of any intention of the seller to create it.
Second Issue: The Court disagrees.
It is undisputed that Makro's legal counsel conducted an ocular inspection
on the properties in question before the execution of the deeds of sale and
that there were noticeable works and constructions going on near them.
Nonetheless, these are insufficient to charge Makro with actual knowledge
that the DPWH project had encroached upon respondents' properties. The
dimensions of the properties in relation to the DPWH project could have not
been accurately ascertained through the naked eye.
A mere ocular inspection could not have possibly determined the exact
extent of the encroachment. It is for this reason that only upon a relocation
survey performed by a geodetic engineer, was it discovered that 131
square meters and 130 square meters of the lots purchased from Coco
Charcoal and Lim, respectively, had been adversely affected by the DPWH
project.
Extra Issue: WON RTC erred in awarding 1.5m without basis. (YES)
RTC errs in ordering respondents to pay P1,500,00.00 each to Makro. Under
Section 2 of the deeds of sale, the purchase price shall be adjusted in case
of increase or decrease in the land area at the rate of P8,500.00 per square
meter. In the case at bar, 131 square meters and 130 square meters of the
properties of Coco Charcoal and Lim, respectively, were encroached upon
by the DPWH project. Applying the formula set under the deeds of sale,
Makro should be entitled to receive P1,113,500.00 from Coco Charcoal and
P1,105,000.00 from Lim.

Makro V Coco and Lim Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Makro V Coco and Lim Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Makro V Coco and Lim Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR.N.

196419 Pilipinas Makro v Coco Charcoal and Lim Kim San

You might also like