This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-03-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As determined by the court-appointed commissioner, the total area of the parcel claimed by respondents measures 14,433 square meters, of which 7,055 square meters are, in turn, claimed by petitioners.[46] In deciding against respondents, the RTC ruled that the areas of said parcel and, for that matter, the portion in litigation, were disproportionately larger than the 1,612 square meters stated in the TDs adduced by respondents. It must be borne in mind, however, that what defines the land is not the numerical data indicated as its size or area but, rather, the boundaries or "metes and bounds" specified in its description as enclosing the land and indicating its limits.[47] To repeat, the evidence adduced a quo shows that the boundaries of the parcel of land purchased by Antonia are consistent with the boundaries of the parcel of land in Miguel's TDs and the sketch submitted by the court-appointed commissioner. | |||||