- Statute
- Civil Code
- Article
- Art. 1542
- Topic
- Obligations of the Vendor
- Status
- In force
- Book
- BOOK IV Obligations and Contracts
- Title
- TITLE VI SALES
- Chapter
- CHAPTER 4 Obligations of the Vendor
- Formerly
- Art. 1471 of the old Civil Code
- Year
- 1949
- Cited by
- Multiple Supreme Court decisions
The provision
In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or decrease of the price, although there be a greater or less area or number than that stated in the contract. The same rule shall be applied when two or more immovables as sold for a single price; but if, besides mentioning the boundaries, which is indispensable in every conveyance of real estate, its area or number should be designated in the contract, the vendor shall be bound to deliver all that is included within said boundaries, even when it exceeds the area or number specified in the contract; and, should he not be able to do so, he shall suffer a reduction in the price, in proportion to what is lacking in the area or number, unless the contract is rescinded because the vendee does not accede to the failure to deliver what has been stipulated. (1471)
Intellegal Wiki · In plain terms
In a lump-sum sale of real estate (not priced per unit of measure), the price does not change even if the actual area or number differs from what the contract stated. But when boundaries are given, the seller must deliver everything inside those boundaries even if it exceeds the stated area; if he cannot, the price is reduced proportionally, or the buyer may rescind.
An editorially maintained plain-language explanation of this provision — not legal advice.
Intellegal Wiki · How the courts apply it
In Joseph Harry Walter Poole-Blunden v. Union Bank of the Philippines, the Supreme Court held: Annulled the contract for the bank's causal fraud in misrepresenting the unit's area, holding the 'as-is-where-is' clause and Article 1542 do not bar annulment, and ordered a refund with legal interest plus damages.
One leading Supreme Court case applying this provision.
Cases applying this article
- Spouses Lucia A. Orozco v. Florante G. Lozano G.R. No. 222616
- Dasmariñas T. Arcaina v. Noemi L. Ingram G.R. No. 196444
- Rudolf Lietz v. The Court of Appeals G.R. No. 122463
- Segundina Heluhano Arano v. Delilah L. Pulido G.R. No. 248002
- Joseph Harry Walter Poole-Blunden v. Union Bank of the Philippines G.R. No. 205838
- Carmen del Prado v. Spouses Antonio L. Caballero G.R. No. 148225
- Feliciano Esguerra v. Virginia Trinidad G.R. No. 169890