G.R. No.

L24732, April 30, 1968

PIO SIAN MELLIZA, petitioner,vs.CITY OF ILOILO,
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE
COURT APPEALS, respondents.
Facts:

Juliana Melliza during her lifetime owned, among other

properties, three parcels of residential land in Iloilo
City registered in her name under Original Certificate
of Title No. 3462. Said parcels of land were known as
Lots Nos. 2, 5 and 1214. The total area of Lot No. 1214
was 29,073 square meters.
On November 27, 1931 she donated to the then
Municipality of Iloilo, 9,000 square meters of Lot 1214,
to serve as site for the municipal hall. The donation
was however revoked by the parties for the reason
that the area donated was found inadequate to meet
the requirements of the development plan of the
municipality, the so called "Arellano Plan".
On January 14, 1938 Juliana Melliza sold her remaining
interest in Lot 1214 to Remedios Sian Villanueva.
Remedios in turn on November 4, 1946 transferred
her rights to said portion of land to Pio Sian Melliza
On August 24, 1949 the City of Iloilo, which succeeded
to the Municipality of Iloilo, donated the city hall site
together with the building thereon, to the University of
the Philippines (Iloilo branch).
On December 10, 1955 Pio Sian Melliza filed an action

in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against Iloilo City

and the University of the Philippines for recovery of
Lot or of its value.
The defendants answered, contending that Lot 1214B
was included in the public instrument executed by
Juliana Melliza in favor of Iloilo municipality in 1932.
The court dismiss the complaint. Said court ruled that
the instrument executed by Juliana Melliza in favor of
Iloilo municipality included in the conveyance Lot
1214- B.
Pio Sian Melliza appealed to the Court of Appeals. In
its decision on May 19, 1965, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the interpretation of the Court of First
Instance, that the portion of Lot 1214 sold by Juliana
Melliza was not limited to the 10,788 square meters
specifically mentioned but included whatever was
needed for the construction of avenues, parks and the
city hall site. Nonetheless, it ordered the remand of
the case for reception of evidence to determine the
area
actually taken by Iloilo City for the construction of
avenues, parks and for city hall site.
Ruling:

The requirement of the law that a 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 made determinate without the
necessity of a new or further agreement between the
parties (Art. 1273, old Civil Code; Art. 1460, New Civil

Code). The specific mention of some of the lots plus

the statement that the lots object of the sale are the
ones needed for city hall site, avenues and parks,
according to the Arellano plan, sufficiently provides a
basis, as of the time of the execution of the contract,
for rendering determinate said lots without the need
of a new and further agreement of the parties.
The Arellano plan was in existence as early as 1928.
As stated, the previous donation of land for city hall
site on November 27, 1931 was revoked on March 6,
1932 for being inadequate in area under said Arellano
plan. Appellant claims that although said plan existed,
its metes and bounds were not fixed until 1935, and
thus it could not be a basis for determining the lots
sold on November 15, 1932. Appellant however fails
to consider that the area needed under that plan for
city hall site was then already known; that the specific
mention of some of the lots covered by the sale in
effect fixed the corresponding location of the city hall
site under the plan; that, therefore, considering the
said lots specifically mentioned in the public
instrument Exhibit "D", and the projected city hall site,
with its area, as then shown in the Arellano plan
(Exhibit 2), it could be determined which, and how
much of the portions of land contiguous to those
specifically named, were needed for the construction
of the city hall site.
And, moreover, there is no question either that Lot
1214B is contiguous to Lots 1214C and 1214D,
admittedly covered by the public instrument. It is
stipulated that, after execution of the contract Exhibit

"D", the Municipality of Iloilo possessed it together

with the other lots sold. It sits practically in the heart
of the city hall site. Furthermore, Pio Sian Melliza, from
the stipulation of facts, was the notary public of the
public instrument. As such, he was aware of its terms.
Said instrument was also registered with the Register
of Deeds and such registration was annotated at the
back of the corresponding title certificate of Juliana
Melliza. From these stipulated facts, it can be inferred
that Pio Sian Melliza knew of the aforesaid terms of
the instrument or is chargeable with knowledge of
them; that knowing so, he should have examined the
Arellano plan in relation to the public
instrument Exhibit "D"; that, furthermore, he should
have taken notice of the possession first by the
Municipality of Iloilo, then by the City of Iloilo and later
by the University of the Philippines of Lot 1214B as
part of the city hall site conveyed under that public
instrument, and raised proper objections thereto if it
was his position that the same was not included in the
same. The fact remains that, instead, for twenty long
years, Pio Sian Melliza and his predecessorsininterest, did not object to said possession, nor
exercise any act of possession over Lot 1214B.
Applying, therefore, principles of civil law, as well as
laches, estoppel, and equity, said lot must necessarily
be deemed included in the conveyance in favor of
Iloilo municipality, now Iloilo City.