Melliza v.

City of Iloilo
G.R. No. L-24732; April 30, 1968
Bengzon, J.P., J.

Petitioners: Pio Sian Melliza

Respondents: City of Iloilo, University of the Philippines, and the Court of Appeals

Facts:
 Juliana Melliza owned three parcels of land in Iloilo City (Lots 2, 5, and 1214; total area of Lot 1214:
29,073sqm).
 She donated 9,000sqm of Lot 1214 to the then Municipality of Iloilo to serve as site for the municipal hall.
 It was however revoked by the parties because it did not meet the requirements of the development plan
(“Arellano Plan”).
 Lot 1214 was divided into Lots 1214-A, 1214-B (4,562sqm; previously 1214-B1), 1214-C (6,653sqm;
previously 1214-B2), and 1214-D (4,135sqm; previously 1214-B3).
 On November 15, 1932, Juliana Melliza executed an instrument stating that she received a consideration of
P6,442 and that she is transferring the specified properties to the Municipality of Iloilo.
o Lot no. 5
o 7,669sqm of Lot no. 2
o 10,788sqm of Lot 1214 (1214-B2 and 1214-B3)
 Juliana sold her remaining interests in Lot 1214 to Remedios Sian Villanueva. Remedios transferred her
rights to the portion of land to Pio Sian Melliza (petitioner), who obtained a TCT under his name.
o Annotated at the back of Melliza’s TCT: “x x x (a) that a portion of 10,788 square meters of Lot
1214 now designated as Lots Nos. 1214-B-2 and 1214-B-3 of the subdivision plan belongs to the
Municipality of Iloilo as per instrument dated November 15, 1932. x x x”
 The City of Iloilo donated the city hall site (15,350sqm; Lots 1214-B, 1214-C, 1214-D) to University of the
Philippines (UP), Iloilo campus.
 UP enclosed the site donated. Because of this, Pio made representations for payment of the value of the
land. No recovery was obtained because the city had no funds. UP obtained TCTs covering the three lots.
 Pio filed an action for recovery of Lot 1214-B or its value against Iloilo City and UP. The latter contended
that Lot 1214-B was included in the public instrument executed by Juliana in 1932.
 CFI dismissed the complaint. It ruled that Lot 1214-B was included in the aforementioned instrument.
o As evidenced by the second paragraph, Juliana did not sell 1214-C and 1214-D, but other
portions that are necessary for the municipal hall site. Hence, Iloilo City has the right to donate to
UP.
 CA affirmed. It ruled that portion of the lot was not limited to 10,788sqm but including whatever is needed
for the construction of avenues, parks, and the city hall site.

Issue/s:
1. W/N lot 1214-B was included in the conveyance of Juliana Melliza to Iloilo City

Held:
1. Yes, it was part of the instrument Juliana executed in 1932.
 The issue here is the true intent of the parties; whether the second paragraph of the instrument
was intended merely to further describe the lots already specifically mentioned, or whether it was
intended to cover other lots not yet specifically mentioned.
 The paramount intention of the parties was to provide Iloilo with lots sufficient for the
construction of the city hall site, including its parks and avenues.
 The instrument executed by Juliana in 1932 describes the lots not only those that were
mentioned, but the lots object of the sale, by stating that said lots are the ones needed for the
construction of the city hall site, avenues, and parks.
 If the parties intended merely to cover the specified lots—Lots 2, 5, 1214-C and 1214-D, there
would scarcely have been any need for the next paragraph, since these lots are already very clearly
described by their respective lot number and area. Said next paragraph does not really add to the
clear description that was already given to them in the previous one.
  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. 1460, NCC).
 The specific mention of some of the lots and the statement that the lots object of the sale are those
which are needed for the construction of the city hall, avenue, and parks are sufficient to render
determinate the lots even without another agreement.
 Arellano Plan existed as early as 1928, hence, the area needed for the construction was already
known.
 After the sale, Iloilo took possession also of the other lots. In fact, Pio Melliza was the notary
public of the instrument; he was aware of the terms. He should have taken notice of the possession
first. For 20 years, he did not object to the possession.

Dispositive Portion:
“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. No costs. So ordered.”