BATASnatin LIVE Free Legal Advice

BATASnatin Live! Visit our YouTube channel for more details!

 

SEMIRA V. CA

230 SCRA 577

FACTS:

Gutierrez was the owner of a parcel of land. This parcel was sold to Buenaventura An. He entered the premises based on the boundaries stated in the deed of sale. He then bought two additional parcels of land. On a relevant date, he sold the first parcel to his nephew who also entered the premises based on the boundaries stated in the deed. The deed also stated the same boundaries and area of the lot, which was larger in actuality. This nephew then sold the land to petitioner. The deed this time reflected a different area, the actual area of the land. The land was found to be larger than what was stated in the previous documents. Semira entered then the premises based on the boundaries and began construction of a rice mill. Buenaventura then filed an action for forcible entry against Semira, alleging that latter illegally encroached on the other parcel of land previously bought by the former and that the land that was supposed to be occupied by the latter was smaller than the land he was actually occupying.

HELD:

In the case at bar, the issue of possession cannot be decided independently of the question of ownership. Private respondent claimed constructive possession of the parcel of land he alleged to be encroached by Semira. Likewise, Semira based his occupancy of the land by virtue of the Ramirez’s sale of the land to him. The question of prior possession may
only be resolved in answering the question of who is the real owner of the disputed portion. Where land is sold for a lump sum and not so much per unit of measure, the boundaries of the land stated in the contract determines the effects
and scope of the sale, not the area thereof. The vendor is thus obligated to deliver the land included within the boundaries regardless of whether the land is greater or lesser than the area stipulated in the sale.