ART.

1369 PROCEDURE FOR REFORMATION

No. L-22487
Atilano v. Atilano
Makalintal, J.
Summarized by Cristelle Collera
Eulogio II buys a plot of land from Eulogio I. 39 years later, it was found that
Eulogio II had been occupying the wrong plot and had accidentally switched with
Eulogio I. Eulogio IIs heirs now want to exchange lands with Eulogio Is heirs to correct
the mistake.
IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Eulogio Atilano I (Eulogio I) original owner of 5 lots (Lot 535-A to 535-E); his
heirs are the defendants
Eulogio Atilano II (Eulogio II) Eulogio Is brother, buyer of Lot 535-E; his heirs
are the plaintiffs
FACTS
1. 1920: Eulogio I executed a deed of sale of Lot 535-E in favor of Eulogio II.
He sold Lots 535-B to 535-D, and kept Lot 535-A for himself.
2. 1959: When Eulogio IIs wife died, he and his children had the land
resurveyed so they could subdivide it, and it was discovered that the lot
they were actually occupying was Lot 535-A (supposed to be owned by
Eulogio I) and not 535-E (which was written in their deed).
3. 1960: Heirs of Eulogio II (deceased) filed the instant case in CFI Zamboanga,
asking the heirs of Eulogio I to surrender Lot 535-E, in exchange for Lot 535A, to correct the mistake.
Heirs of Eulogio I refused to switch lots because Lot 535-A was smaller
than Lot 535-E. They also averred that it was an involuntary error, and
that Eulogio I really intended to sell Lot 535-A to Eulogio II.
4. TC: judgment in favor of plaintiffs because since the land was registered
under the Land Registration Act, the defendants cant acquire Lot 535-E
through prescription.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. W/N Lot 535-E must be returned to Eulogio IIs heirs in conformity with
the deed of sale No.

When one sells or buys real property, one sells or buys the property as
he sees it, in its actual setting and by its physical metes and bounds,
and not by the mere lot number assigned to it in the certificate of title.
Eulogio II had already built his house on Lot 535-A even before
Eulogio I executed the deed of sale, showing that the intent really
was to convey Lot 535-A and not Lot 535-E.
The mistake did not vitiate the consent of the parties to the sale, and
does not affect the validity and the binding effect of the same.
Because of Art. 1359, there is no need to reform the deed of sale
executed by Eulogio I and Eulogio II. The heirs, having possession of
the lands they are presently occupying, should now execute mutual
deeds of conveyance in favor of each other (just to make it official that
Eulogio Is heirs own Lot 535-E and Eulogio IIs heirs own Lot 535-A).

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Judgment reversed.
DOCTRINE
Art. 1359. When, there having been a meeting of the minds of the parties to a
contract, their true intention is not expressed in the instrument purporting to
embody the agreement, by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or
accident, one of the parties may ask for the reformation of the instrument to the
end that such true intention may be expressed.
If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a meeting of the
minds of the parties, the proper remedy is not reformation of the instrument but
annulment of the contract.
RELEVANCE TO THE LESSON
In this case, there was a meeting of the minds of the parties in the deed of sale.
However, their intention (to convey Lot 535-A, not E) was not expressed in the
contract because of an honest mistake, which is not included in the reasons
enumerated in Art. 1359). Therefore, they cannot ask for the reformation of
the contract.