Atilano v Atilano

- Eulogio Atilano I acquired by purchase Lot No. 535 in Zamboanga.

He then acquired the transfer certificate of title in his name. He had
the land subdivided into 5 parts and after it was subdivided he
executed a deed of sale of lot 535-E to his brother, Eulogio Atilano II.
He also sold the other portions retaining only for himself Lot 535-A.
When he died the title of the lot passed on to his son, the
defendant.
- Eulogio Atilano II became a widower. He and his children wanted to
end the co-ownership over the land so they caused it to be
resurveyed so that it could be subdivided. It was discovered that the
land they had in possession was not Lot 535-E but lot 535-A.
- The heirs of Atilano II filed the present action in court alleging that
they had offered to surrender their lot and demanded that the
defendants surrender lot 535-E to them. The defendants refused
understandably since Lot 535-E had a bigger area.
- Defendants alleged that the intention of the parties was really to sell
lot 535-A and the reference to the deed as lot 535-E was an
involuntary error. They also alleged that Eulogio Atilano I has been
in possession of Lot 535-E since 1916 up to his death, when he was
succeeded by his heirs. He even increased the area when he bought
a portion of the adjoining lot, 536.
- RTC  ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (heirs of Eulogio Atilano II) on
the ground that the defendants couldn’t acquire the land in
prescription because it was registered under the Land Registration
Act

Issue: Won the parties intended to sell lot 535-A or lot 535-E.

Ruling:
- logic and common sense lean in favor of the defendants. When one
buys real property like a piece of land, one buys 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 Atilano II was already in possession of lot 535-A even before
he acquired it by sale. He constructed a house therein where the
plaintiff heirs reside up to now. In the same way that Eulogio Atilano
I already had lot 535-E in his possession and even acquired the
property beside it.
- The real issue is not adverse possession but the intention of the
parties. From the facts and circumstances it can be seen that the
real intention was that the specific portion where the vendees are
residing, where they constructed the house, where the heirs still
reside be the one conveyed and that the designation in the deed
was a simple mistake in the drafting of the document.
- The mistake did not vitiate the consent of the parties. The remedy
here is reformation of the instrument. But in this case the sale
executed in the deed no longer needs to be reformed.
- The parties have retained possession of their respective properties
conformably to the real intention of the parties to that sale, and all
they should do is to execute mutual deeds of conveyance.