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