Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    142 Semira V CA

    Uploaded by

    Leo Tumagan
    The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between Semira and An. Semira claimed ownership based on a deed stating the land as 2200 sqm, while An claimed it was only 822.5 sqm as stated in the original deed. The Court ruled that when land is sold by boundaries for a lump sum, the boundaries determine the scope rather than the stated area, so An had sold the entire land within the boundaries.

    Copyright:

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

    142 Semira V CA

    Uploaded by

    Leo Tumagan
    32 views1 page
    The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between Semira and An. Semira claimed ownership based on a deed stating the land as 2200 sqm, while An claimed it was only 822.5 sqm as stated in the original deed. The Court ruled that when land is sold by boundaries for a lump sum, the boundaries determine the scope rather than the stated area, so An had sold the entire land within the boundaries.

    Original Title

    142 Semira v CA

    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 a parcel of land between Semira and An. Semira claimed ownership based on a deed stating the land as 2200 sqm, while An claimed it was only 822.5 sqm as stated in the original deed. The Court ruled that when land is sold by boundaries for a lump sum, the boundaries determine the scope rather than the stated area, so An had sold the entire land within the boundaries.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views1 page

    142 Semira V CA

    Uploaded by

    Leo Tumagan
    The case involved a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between Semira and An. Semira claimed ownership based on a deed stating the land as 2200 sqm, while An claimed it was only 822.5 sqm as stated in the original deed. The Court ruled that when land is sold by boundaries for a lump sum, the boundaries determine the scope rather than the stated area, so An had sold the entire land within the boundaries.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Semira v.

    CA and Buenaventura An

    FACTS:

     An bought a parcel of land (4221) from Gutierrez with an estimated area of 822.5 sq.m and with the following
    boundaries stated:
    o North – Taysan-Lobo-Sto. Nino-Pinagbayanan and Sto. Nino-Dagatan Road
    o East – Sto. Nino-Pinagbayanan Road and Juana Gutierrez
    o South – Sto. Nino School Site
    o West – Sto. Nino – Dagatan Road
     An entered the premises following the boundaries, not the area given
     An then acquired two other parcels of land to the east
     An then sold the subject lot to his nephew for LUMP SUM of 2500 pesos, latter then sold the subject lot to
    Semira
    o However, when Ramirez sold the lot to Semira, the deed of sale stated 2200 sq. meters instead of 822.5
    because they’ve been referring to the lot as delimited by the boundaries and not the area stated in the
    first deed of sale to An
    o The lot, when delimited only by the boundaries, is actually larger than 822.5
     Now, when Semira entered the premises and started building a new rice-mill, An filed a case for forcible entry
    against Semira because he forcibly entered on the premises of An to the east of Lot 4221
    o An claimed that the lot is ONLY 822.5 Sq meters
     Semira admits occupying the lot but denies the illegality of the occupation and claims ownership over the land
    on the basis of the deed of sale to Semira by Ramirez
     MTC ruled in favor of Semira, but RTC reversed the MTC since An had prior possession to Semira since he was
    occupying the portion being disputed upon even before Semira started building his new rice mill, CA affirmed
    the decision

    ISSUE: Who between the two has right possession to the disputed portion of land?

    RULING: In this case at bench, the issue of possession cannot be decided independently of the question of ownership
    because it must be known who is actually the owner of the disputed portion because both are parties are claiming
    that the portion in question belong to their own parcel of land (there is an overlap)

     The dispute arose from the fact that Semira actually followed the boundaries and claimed 2200 sw. meters while
    An said the area is only 822.5 Sq. meters as it was stated in the first deed of sale when he himself got the area.
    The question is, which should be followed, the area or the boundaries?
     It has been ruled that when a land is sold for LUMP SUM, the BOUNDARIES determine the scope and effects of
    the sale and NOT THE AREA
     Therefore, vendors are obligated to deliver ALL THE LAND included WITHIN the BOUNDAIRIES
     Therefore, when An sold 4221 to his nephew, he actually sold the ENTIRE LAND WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES and
    NOT THE AREA and sold more than what he thought he sold
     IMPORTANT NOTE: the case was merely an action for forcible entry and that the issue of ownership was decided
    for the sole purpose of RESOLVING PRIORITY POSSESSION. The SC had to know who owned the lot to know who
    was actually possessing the lot

    You might also like