In Pilipinas Makro, Inc. v. Coco Charcoal Philippines, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that an express warranty in a deed of sale, assuring that a property is free from encumbrances, is enforceable even when a road widening project later affects the land. The Court emphasized that a buyer’s awareness of ongoing construction near the property does not automatically equate to knowledge of specific encroachments. This decision protects buyers by upholding the sellers’ explicit guarantees regarding the property’s condition, ensuring they receive what they bargained for.

Land Deals and Roadblocks: Who Pays When Public Works Shrink Private Property?

Pilipinas Makro, Inc. (Makro) sought to establish a store in Davao City and purchased two adjacent lots from Coco Charcoal Philippines, Inc. (Coco Charcoal) and Lim Kim San (Lim). Both deeds of sale contained similar provisions, including an express warranty that the properties were free from encumbrances. After the sale, a resurvey revealed that a Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) road widening project had encroached upon both properties. Makro sought a refund from Coco Charcoal and Lim for the diminished area, but they refused. This led to a legal battle that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

The central legal question was whether Makro was entitled to a refund given the express warranty in the deeds of sale and its apparent awareness of the ongoing DPWH project. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of Makro, finding that the respondents had concealed the encroachment. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, arguing that Makro’s knowledge of the road widening project meant it could not claim ignorance of the encumbrance. This ruling hinged on the CA’s interpretation of the warranty as akin to a warranty against eviction, which requires the buyer to be in good faith. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the CA’s assessment.

The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between an express warranty and an implied warranty. An **express warranty** is explicitly stated in the contract, while an **implied warranty** arises by operation of law. In this case, Section 4(i) of the deeds of sale contained an express warranty that the properties were free from encumbrances. The Court emphasized that this warranty was a key part of the agreement and should be enforced as written.

Section 4. Representations and Warranties

The SELLER hereby represents and warrants to the BUYER that:

i. The Property is and shall continue to be free and clear of all easements, liens and encumbrances of any nature whatsoever, and is, and shall continue to be, not subject to any claim set-off or defense which will prevent the BUYER from obtaining full and absolute ownership and possession over the Property or from developing or using it as a site for its store building.

The Court also distinguished this situation from a warranty against eviction. For a **warranty against eviction** to apply, there must be a final judgment depriving the buyer of the property due to a prior right. Here, there was no such judgment. Furthermore, the Court rejected the CA’s argument that Makro’s knowledge of the DPWH project negated the warranty. While Makro may have been aware of construction in the area, this did not necessarily mean it knew the exact extent of the encroachment on the properties.

The Supreme Court emphasized that a simple ocular inspection could not have accurately determined the dimensions of the encroachment. Only a professional resurvey revealed the true extent of the impact of the DPWH project on the purchased lands. Therefore, Makro’s general awareness of construction activity did not negate the express warranty provided by Coco Charcoal and Lim. They were bound by their promise that the properties were free from encumbrances.

However, the Court also addressed the amount of the refund. Section 2 of the deeds of sale stipulated that the purchase price should be adjusted based on any discrepancies in the land area, priced at P8,500.00 per square meter. The RTC had ordered the respondents to pay P1,500,000.00 each to Makro, but the Supreme Court found this amount to be without sufficient factual basis. Instead, applying the formula in the deeds of sale, the Court determined that Makro was entitled to P1,113,500.00 from Coco Charcoal and P1,105,000.00 from Lim, which corresponded to the value of the encroached areas at the agreed-upon rate.

Moreover, the Supreme Court addressed the RTC’s award of attorney’s fees and exemplary damages. The Court stated that attorney’s fees are not automatically awarded simply because a party is compelled to litigate. There must be a showing of bad faith on the part of the losing party. In this case, there was no clear evidence that Coco Charcoal and Lim acted in bad faith by refusing the refund. Similarly, exemplary damages require a showing of wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent conduct. The Court found no such evidence to justify the award of exemplary damages.

In the absence of bad faith or malicious intent, the Court held that neither attorney’s fees nor exemplary damages were warranted. The ruling underscores the principle that litigation should not be penalized unless there is clear evidence of wrongdoing beyond a mere erroneous conviction of one’s cause. This provides a balanced approach, ensuring that parties are not unduly punished for defending their positions in court.

This case illustrates the importance of **express warranties** in property sales. Sellers must honor their explicit promises regarding the condition of the property, and buyers are entitled to rely on those promises. While due diligence is always advisable, buyers are not automatically assumed to have knowledge of hidden encumbrances simply because of visible construction activity in the vicinity.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Pilipinas Makro was entitled to a refund from Coco Charcoal and Lim Kim San for the portion of land encroached upon by a DPWH road widening project, given the express warranty in the deeds of sale.
What is an express warranty?	An express warranty is a specific promise or guarantee made by the seller regarding the condition or quality of the property being sold, as explicitly stated in the contract. It differs from an implied warranty, which arises by operation of law.
How did the Court distinguish between express warranty and implied warranty against eviction?	The Court clarified that the express warranty in the deeds of sale was a specific promise about the property’s condition, whereas the implied warranty against eviction requires a final judgment depriving the buyer of the property due to a prior right. In this case, there was no such judgment, so the implied warranty did not apply.
Was Makro’s knowledge of the DPWH project relevant?	The Court held that Makro’s general awareness of the ongoing DPWH project did not negate the express warranty. Actual knowledge of the specific encroachment, which could only be determined through a resurvey, was necessary to invalidate the warranty.
How was the amount of the refund calculated?	The amount of the refund was calculated based on the formula specified in Section 2 of the deeds of sale, which stipulated a price of P8,500.00 per square meter for any discrepancies in the land area.
Why were attorney’s fees and exemplary damages not awarded?	The Court found no evidence that Coco Charcoal and Lim acted in bad faith or with malicious intent, which is required for awarding attorney’s fees and exemplary damages. The Court underscored the principle that litigation should not be penalized in the absence of wrongdoing beyond a mere erroneous conviction of one’s cause.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for property buyers?	The ruling reinforces the importance of express warranties in property sales and ensures that sellers are held accountable for their explicit promises regarding the condition of the property, providing greater protection for buyers.
What should property buyers do to protect their interests?	Buyers should conduct thorough due diligence, including professional surveys, and ensure that all warranties are clearly stated in the contract. They should also seek legal advice to fully understand their rights and obligations.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Pilipinas Makro, Inc. v. Coco Charcoal Philippines, Inc. underscores the importance of upholding express warranties in property sales and provides clarity on the distinction between express and implied warranties. This ruling offers valuable guidance for property buyers and sellers, promoting fairness and transparency in real estate transactions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Pilipinas Makro, Inc. v. Coco Charcoal Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 196419, October 04, 2017