University of the Philippines College of Law

[Digest maker’s initials] D2022

Case Name PIO SIAN MELLIZA v. CITY OF ILOILO
Topic FORMATION AND PERFECTION OF THE CONTRACT OF SALE
Case No. | Date G.R. L-24732 | April 30, 1968
Ponente BENGZON, J.P., J.
Julliana sold several lots to Municipality of Iloilo, with a provision enumerating a part of the land
covered by the Arellano plan, without specifying the lot no. She subsequently sold other parts of
the land, whose title eventually fell on Pio. Pio sought to recover Lot 1214-B from the City of Iloilo,
Case Summary
contending the lot was not covered in the sale as it was not specifically stated in the sale. The
Court ruled that it was part of the sale, as referenced as the part of the lot contiguous which was
needed according to the Arellano plan.
Sale must have for its object a determinate thing, is fulfilled as long as, at the time the
Doctrine contract is entered into, the object of the sale is capable of being determinate without the
necessity of a new or further agreement between the parties

RELEVANT FACTS

• Juliana Melliza donated to the Municipality of Iloilo 9,000 sqm of Lot 1214 to serve as site for the municipal hall;
donation was revoked by the parties for reason that the area was inadequate to meet requirements of the Arellano
Plan;
• Certeza Surveying Co., Inc. divided Lot 1214 into Lot 1214-A and Lot 1214 B. Later on, Lot 1214-B was further
divided into Lot 1214-B-1, Lot 1214-B-2, and Lot 1214-B-3.
o Lot 1214-B-1 (4,562 sqm) became Lot 1214-B
o Lot 1214-B-2 (6,653 sqm) became Lot 1214-C
o Lot 1214-B-3 (4,135 sqm) became Lot 1214-D
• Juliana executed such instrument on November 15, 1932:
o That in consideration of the total sum of six thousand four hundred twenty two pesos (P6,422.00), Philippine
currency, that I hereby declare to have received to my entire satisfaction from the Municipal Government
of Iloilo, I assign and transfer in real and final sale said Government Municipal de Iloilo the lots and portions
thereof that are specified below, namely: Lot 5 in its entirety; a 7,669 sqm portion of Lot 2, portion of which
is designated as sub-lots 2-B and 2-C of the subdivision plan of said lots prepared by Certeza Surveying
Co., Inc., and a portion of 10,788 sqm of Lot No 1214, whose portion is designated as sub-lots 1214-B-2
and 1214-B-3 of the same subdivision plan.

Likewise, I state that the aforementioned assignment and transfer is for final sale, and that for the better
identification of the lots and portions thereof that are the subject of this document, I certify said lots and
portions are the ones that the Municipal Government of Iloilo for the construction of avenues, parks, and
City Hall site of the Municipal Government Center of Iloilo, according to the Arellano Plan.
• Julianna sold the remainder of Lot 1214 to Remedios Sian Villanueva on January 14, 1938, who in turn sold the
same to Pio Sian Melliza. At the back of his title was the following annotation
o (a) that a portion of 10,788 sqm of Lot 1214 now designated as Lots 1214-B-2 and 1214-B-3 of the
subdivision plan belongs to the Municipality of Iloilo as per instrument dated November 15, 1932.
• City of Iloilo donated the city hall site to the University of the Philippines, which consisted of Lots 1214-B, 1214-C,
and 1214-D for a total of 15,350 sqm.
o University of the Philippines fenced the site and obtained title to the same; Pio made representations for
recovery of the value of Lot 1214-B
• Pio filed an action with the Court of First Instance for recovery of Lot 1214-B or its value
o Iloilo City contends that Lot 1214-B was included in the public instrument in 1932
o Court ruled in favor of Iloilo City, citing this part of the sale:
▪ Likewise, I state that the aforementioned assignment and transfer is for final sale, and that for the
better identification of the lots and portions thereof that are the subject of this document, I certify
said lots and portions are the ones that the Municipal Government of Iloilo for the construction of
avenues, parks, and City Hall site of the Municipal Government Center of Iloilo, according to the
Arellano Plan.
o Court of Appeals affirmed interpretation of the CFI. It ordered remand of case for reception of evidence on
actual area taken by the government.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
[Digest maker’s initials] D2022

RATIO DECIDENDI
W/N Lot 1214-B was included in the instrument selling portions of the Lot to the Municipality of Iloilo – YES
The issue here is whether the second paragraph of the November 1932 instrument was intended to further describe
the enumerated lots or whether it covered lots not yet specifically mentioned.

Undoubtable is the intention to provide the Municipality with lots to construct the hall site and avenues and parks; the
previous donation was revoked as the size was insufficient for this project, hence the subsequent sale. It described
in particular 4 lots, and then lots object of the sale stating they are the ones needed for the construction accordin to
the Arellano plan.

By referring to the Arellano plan, and since the said lots are contiguous to the ones particularly described, that said
Lot 1214-B was indeed included.

Sale must have for its object a determinate thing, is fulfilled as long as, at the time the contract is entered
into, the object of the sale is capable of being determinate without the necessity of a new or further
agreement between the parties. The reference to the Arellano plan sufficiently provides a basis for rendering
determinate said lots without need of a new and further agreement.

The Arellano plan was in existence as early as 1928 – the basis for the revocation of the original donation.

Pio himself was the notary public that notarized the public instrument – if he was of the opinion Lot 1214-B was not
included, he should have said so. He should have examined the Arellano plan in relation to the instrument, and raised
his objection in a timely manner – yet, it took him twenty long years to do so.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed insofar as it affirms that of the Court of First Instance, and the
complaint in this case is dismissed.