Text of the provision
Art. 1542. 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shall suffer a reduction in the price, in proportion to what is lacking in the area or number, unless the contract is rescinded because the vendee does not accede to the failure to deliver what has been stipulated.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)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
In a sale of realty for a lump sum, not per unit, there is no price adjustment for a greater or lesser area — the vendor must deliver all within the stated boundaries. Boundaries prevail over the stated area (sale a cuerpo cierto).
Related provisions
- Article 1541 — Application to Judicial Sales.
- Article 1543 — Prescription of Area Actions.
Cases citing this article
- Spouses Lucia A. Orozco and Cresente R. Orozco (deceased), substituted by his heirs, namely:, G.R. No. 222616, April 3, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Joseph Harry Poole-Blunden vs. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 205838, November 29, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Dasmariñas T. Arcaina and Magnani T. Banta vs. Noemi L. Ingram, represented by Ma. Nenette L. Archinue, G.R. No. 196444, February 15, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Cebu Windland Development Corporation vs. Ong Siao Hua, G.R. No. 173215, May 21, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Feliciano Esguerra, et al. vs. Virginia Trinidad, et al, G.R. No. 169890, March 12, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.