Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    Rudolf Lietz, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122463 (Case Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Ayc
    This case involves a dispute over a lease agreement for one hectare of land that was later sold by the landowner to Rudolf Lietz, Inc. The Supreme Court ruled that Lietz was not entitled to a reduction in the purchase price of the land even though the actual area delivered was less than what was stated in the deed of sale. The court determined that the sale between Lietz and the landowner was for a lump sum based on the boundaries described, not a particular price per area, so no reduction was allowed under Article 1542 of the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rudolf Lietz, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122463 (Case Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Ayc
    80 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over a lease agreement for one hectare of land that was later sold by the landowner to Rudolf Lietz, Inc. The Supreme Court ruled that Lietz was not entitled to a reduction in the purchase price of the land even though the actual area delivered was less than what was stated in the deed of sale. The court determined that the sale between Lietz and the landowner was for a lump sum based on the boundaries described, not a particular price per area, so no reduction was allowed under Article 1542 of the Civil Code.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over a lease agreement for one hectare of land that was later sold by the landowner to Rudolf Lietz, Inc. The Supreme Court ruled that Lietz was not entitled to a reduction in the purchase price of the land even though the actual area delivered was less than what was stated in the deed of sale. The court determined that the sale between Lietz and the landowner was for a lump sum based on the boundaries described, not a particular price per area, so no reduction was allowed under Article 1542 of the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views1 page

    Rudolf Lietz, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122463 (Case Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Ayc
    This case involves a dispute over a lease agreement for one hectare of land that was later sold by the landowner to Rudolf Lietz, Inc. The Supreme Court ruled that Lietz was not entitled to a reduction in the purchase price of the land even though the actual area delivered was less than what was stated in the deed of sale. The court determined that the sale between Lietz and the landowner was for a lump sum based on the boundaries described, not a particular price per area, so no reduction was allowed under Article 1542 of the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Rudolf Lietz, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals | G.R. No.

    122463 | December 19, 2005

    FACTS:
    Respondent Agapito Buriol entered into a lease agreement with Flavia Turatello and respondents Tiziana
    Turatello and Paola Sani involving one hectare of Buriol’s property. The lessees took possession of the
    land after paying Buriol a down payment of P10,000.00. Three months later, Buriol sold to petitioner
    Rudolf Lietz, Inc. the same parcel of land for the amount of P30,000.00. The Deed of Absolute Sale
    described the said land consisting of five hectares, more or less. Petitioner discovered that Buriol owned
    only four hectares and only three hectares were actually delivered to the petitioner since one hectare was
    covered by lease. Petitioner instituted a complaint for Annulment of Lease with Recovery of Possession
    with Injunction and Damages against respondents and Flavia Turatello before the RTC. RTC dismissed
    both petitioner's complaint and respondents’ counterclaim for damages. The Court of Appeals (CA)
    affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint and awarded respondents Turatello and Sani damages
    and attorney's fees. Petitioner brought to the Supreme Court the instant petition after the CA denied its
    motion for reconsideration.

    ISSUE/S:
    Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a reduction in price based on the provisions of Article 1542 of the
    Civil Code?

    RULING:
    NO. As correctly noted by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, the sale between petitioner and
    respondent Buriol involving the latter's property is one made for a lump sum. The Deed of Absolute Sale
    shows that the parties agreed on the purchase price on a predetermined area of five hectares within the
    specified boundaries and not based on a particular rate per area. In accordance with Article 1542, there
    shall be no reduction in the purchase price even if the area delivered to the petitioner is less than that
    stated in the contract. In the instant case, the area within the boundaries as stated in the contract shall
    control over the area agreed upon in the contract.

    You might also like