Asuncion, Cristiano, Rosario, Gregorio ATILANO v Ladislao and o Designation as 535-E was a simple mistake in drafting, but did

Gregorio M. ATILANO not vitiate the consent or affect the validity of the contract The
May 21, 1969 | J. Makalintal new Civil Code provides a remedy for such a situation by means
Available remedy: reformation
 1916 – Eulogio Atilano I purchased from Gerardo Villanueva a lot in
Zamboanga cadaster  There having been a meeting of the minds of the parties to a contract,
o Obtained a TCT in his name their true intention is not expressed in the instrument purporting to
 1920 – said land was subdivided into 5 parts (535-A, 535-B, 535-C, 535- embody the agreement by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct
D, 535-E) on accident (Art. 1359, et seq.)
 1920 - Eulogio I executed a deed sale covering 535-E (2, 612 sqm) in favor  In this case, the deed of sale executed in 1920 need no longer reformed.
of his brother Eulogio Atilano II for P 150 who thereupon obtained a TCT o The parties have retained possession of their respective
in his name properties conformably to the real intention of the parties to that
 The other parts were also sold. Eulogio I kept 535-A (1,808 sqm) for sale, and all they should do is to execute mutual deeds of
himself conveyance.
 Upon the death of Eulogio I, the title of 535-A was passed to Ladislao
(defendant)
 1952 – Eulogio II and his children discovered that the land they were
actually occupying on the strength of the deed of sale was 535-A and 535-
E while the land possessed by Ladislao was actually 535-E
 Heirs offered Ladislao to surrender 535-A in exchange for 535-E
o Ladislao refused
 Jan 1960 – heirs of Eulogio II filed an action with CFI Zamboanga
o Defendants maintain that the reference to 535-E in the deed of
sale was an involuntary error and that the real intention was to
convey the lot identified as 535-A

W/N DEFENDANTS SHOULD SURRENDER 535-A IN EXCHANGE FOR

535-E – NO
 Logic and common sense of the situation lean heavily in favor of the
defendants' contention.
o 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.
 In the case at hand, the portion referred to as 535-A was already in the
possession of Eulogio II, who constructed a residence therein even before
the lot was subdivided. In the same manner, Eulogio I already constructed
his lot on the portion identified as 535-E, even adding to the area by
purchasing an area of the adjoining property.
o The two brothers continued in possession of the respective
portions the rest of their lives
 The real issue here is not adverse possession, but the real intention of
the parties to that sale.
o Court is convinced that the intention of the parties was that
Eulogio II would receive the area of the lot where he was already
residing (535-A)