Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 140 views

    Salinas V Faustino

    Uploaded by

    EPZ RELA
    The case involved a dispute over ownership of land between Salinas and Faustino. Faustino purchased land from Salinas and others via a deed stating the land was 300.375 square meters. However, Faustino claimed it was actually 1381 square meters. The Supreme Court ruled that the boundaries in the deed control, not the stated area, and Faustino only owned the 300.375 square meters described in the deed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Salinas V Faustino

    Uploaded by

    EPZ RELA
    140 views3 pages
    The case involved a dispute over ownership of land between Salinas and Faustino. Faustino purchased land from Salinas and others via a deed stating the land was 300.375 square meters. However, Faustino claimed it was actually 1381 square meters. The Supreme Court ruled that the boundaries in the deed control, not the stated area, and Faustino only owned the 300.375 square meters described in the deed.

    Original Title

    9. Salinas v Faustino

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a dispute over ownership of land between Salinas and Faustino. Faustino purchased land from Salinas and others via a deed stating the land was 300.375 square meters. However, Faustino claimed it was actually 1381 square meters. The Supreme Court ruled that the boundaries in the deed control, not the stated area, and Faustino only owned the 300.375 square meters described in the deed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    140 views3 pages

    Salinas V Faustino

    Uploaded by

    EPZ RELA
    The case involved a dispute over ownership of land between Salinas and Faustino. Faustino purchased land from Salinas and others via a deed stating the land was 300.375 square meters. However, Faustino claimed it was actually 1381 square meters. The Supreme Court ruled that the boundaries in the deed control, not the stated area, and Faustino only owned the 300.375 square meters described in the deed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Salinas v Faustino

    G.R. No. 153077 September 19, 2008

    FACTS:

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

    The deed of sale of Faustino states that he now owns a superficial area of 300.375
    square meters.

    Faustino, joined by his wife, filed before the then Court of First Instance of Zambales a
    complaint for recovery of possession with damages against petitioner, assisted by her
    husband, alleging that the parcel of land he bought via the June 27, 1962 Deed of Sale
    from his co-heirs consisted of 1,381 sq. m.

    The spouses further alleged that they allowed petitioner and co-heirs to occupy and
    build a house on a 627 sq. m. portion of the land on the condition that they would
    voluntarily and immediately remove the house and vacate that portion of the land
    should they (respondents) need the land; and that when they asked petitioner and her
    co-heir-occupants to remove the house and restore the possession of the immediately-
    described portion of the land, they refused, hence, the filing of the complaint.

    PETITIONER (Salinas) RESPONDENT (Faustino)


     She claimed that she is the owner
    of a 628 sq. m. lot covered by
    Tax Declaration in her name.

     Her signature in the June 27, 1962


    Deed of Sale is forged.

    RTC: Found petitioner's claim of forgery unsupported. It nevertheless dismissed the


    complaint, it holding that, inter alia, the Deed of Sale indicated that only 300.375 sq. m.
    was sold to respondents.

    Since the document is the best evidence, and the deed of sale indicates only 300.375
    square meters, so then, only the area as stated in the Deed of Sale should be owned by
    the plaintiffs. The allegations that there might be a typographical error is again mere
    conjecture and not really supported by evidence.

    CA: Modified. It held that since respondents are claiming the whole lot containing 1,381
    sq. m. but that petitioner is claiming 628 sq. m. thereof, then respondents are "entitled
    to the remaining portion . . . of 753 square meters." The appellate court explained:

    [T]he Court agrees with the court a quo that only a portion of the whole lot was indeed
    sold to the plaintiffs-appellants by the heirs of deceased Isidro Salinas and Carmen
    Labitan. What remains to be determined is the particular portion of the area that was
    sold to the plaintiffs-appellants.

    x x x [W]hat really defines a piece of land is not the area calculated with more or less
    certainty mentioned in the description but the boundaries therein laid down as
    enclosing the land and indicating its limits. Where the land is sold for a lump sum and
    not so much per unit of measure or number, the boundaries of the land stated in the
    contract determine the effects and scope of the sale not the area thereof.

    ISSUE: W/N Faustino is the owner of the 753 sq. m. of the disputed land

    SC:

    No

    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.

    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 petitioner 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) petitioner
    occupied 628 sq. m. portion thereof, hence, respondents own the remaining 753 sq. m.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated


    December 20, 2001 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Decision of Branch 73 of
    the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City dated August 31, 1993 DISMISSING Civil Case
    No. 3382-0 is REINSTATED.

    You might also like