ARCAINA v. INGRAM

DASMARIÑAS T. ARCAINA and MAGNANI T. BANTA v. NOEMI L. INGRAM, represented by MA. NENETTE L. ARCHINUE

G.R. No. 196444

February 15, 2017

FACTS:

Arcaina is the owner of a certain land located at Salvacion, Sto. Domingo, Albay her attorney-in-fact, Banta, entered into a contract with Ingram for the sale of the property. Banta showed Ingram and the latter’s attorney-in-fact, respondent Ma. Nenette L. Archinue (Archinue), the metes and bounds of the property. Subsequently, Ingram caused the property to be surveyed. Upon learning of the actual area of the property, Banta allegedly insisted that a portion remained unsold.

In her Complaint, Ingram alleged that upon discovery of the actual area of the property, Banta insisted on fencing the portion which she claimed to be unsold. Ingram further maintained that she is ready to pay the balance.

Accordingly, Ingram prayed that the MCTC declare her owner of the whole property and order petitioners to pay moral damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses. She also asked the court to issue a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the petitioners from undertaking acts of ownership over the alleged unsold portion.

MCTC held that the testimonies of Ingram and her witnesses suffer from several inconsistencies and improbabilities. he MCTC declared that the survey showed that the property was 12,000 sq. m. or more than what was stated in the deeds of sale. On appeal, the RTC reversed and set aside, RTC found that neither of the parties presented competent evidence to prove the property's actual area. Except for a photocopy of the cadastral map purportedly showing the graphical presentation of the property, no plan duly prepared and approved by the proper government agency showing the area of the lot was presented.

In its Decision dated October 26, 2010, the CA affirmed the RTC's ruling with modification. It deleted paragraphs 4 and 5 of the dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision, which ordered petitioners to pay attorney's fees and costs of suit, respectively. 

ISSUES: 

WO/N the contract of have complied in good faith by Ingram?

RULING:

At the time of the sale, Ingram and petitioners did not have knowledge of the actual area of the land within the boundaries of the property. It is undisputed that before the survey, the parties relied on the tax declaration. Thus, when petitioners offered the property for sale and when Ingram accepted the offer, the object of their consent or meeting of the minds, The deeds of sale merely put into writing what was agreed upon by the parties.

Petitioners have already performed their obligation Ingram has yet to fulfill her end of the bargain,55 she must pay petitioners the remaining balance of the contract price.