Roble v. Arbasa

362 SCRA 69

FACTS:

Spouses Arbasa purchased from Fidela Roble a unregistered parcel of land. According to the deed of sale, the land had a total of 240 sqm. However, due to persistent efforts in reclaiming a portion of the sea, the land increased to 884 sqm. Since then the spouses were in continuous possession of the entire parcel of land, Adelaida Arbasa tolerated her sister’s Fidela Roble stay in the house, while Veronica and Lilibeth Roble, nieces stay with Fidela. Shortly after Fidela’s death, Veronica and Lilibeth Roble claimed a portion of the land with an area of 644sqm. According to the Roble’s the two lots located at the southern portion of the lot were owned by Fidela and Gualberto Roble what was only conveyed to spouses Arbasa was the 240 sqm.

ISSUE:

Who has the better right in claiming ownership of the lot?

RULING:

The plaintiff-appellant Adelaida Roble Arbasa is the one who has the better right in claiming entire ownership over the lot as based on the rulling of the case which stated that entitled to the possession of the entire parcel of land containing an area of 844 square meters which is covered by Tax Declaration No. 67 in the name of Adelaida Roble Arbasa.

It was repeatedly ruled that where land is sold for lump sum and not so much per unit of measure or number, the bounderies of the land stated in the contract determine the effects and scope of the sale, not the area thereof. The vendors are obligated to deliver all the land included within the bounderies, regardless of whether the real area should be greater or smaller than that recited in the deed. This is particularly true where the area is described as ‘’humigit kumulang” that is more or less.

*Case digest by Jan Robert M. Corre, JD-4, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2019-2020

By |2020-02-21T06:30:37+00:00January 24th, 2020|Case Digests|Comments Off on Roble v. Arbasa