Atilano v.

Atilano
May 21, 1969 | Makalintal, J. | Reformation of Instruments; Procedure for reformation (Art. 1369)
PETITIONER: Asuncion Atilano, Cristina Atilano, Rosario Atilano
RESPONDENT: Ladislao Atilano and Gregorio Atilano
SUMMARY: Eulogio Atilano I bought a parcel land, subdivided it into 5 and built his house on one of the portions. He sold one
portion to his brother Eulogio Atilano II upon which the latter also built his house. The titles to the lots were obtained at once.
However, it was discovered many years later that the title of Atilano Is lot pertained to the lot sold to Atilano II, and the latters
title conversely pertained to the lot of Atilano I which had a much bigger area. Atilano IIs family sought to obtain the land on the
force of the title. The Court denied their plea. It held that the families are in possession of the lots which the contracting parties
have intended. There was only a mistake with the content of the instruments thus reformation may be sought; however, this is no
longer needed since the intent of the parties have already been carried out. The parties must only convey to each other a document
reflecting the correct description of their lots.
DOCTRINE: 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 boungs, and not by the mere lot number assigned to it in the certificate of title. Reformation can only be sought
pending the enforcement of the contract but not when the intended consideration or obligations have already been carried out.
FACTS:
1. In 1916, Eulogio Atilano I (Atilano 1) acquired by
purchase from one Gerardo Villanueva lot No. 535.
2. In 1920, Atilano I subdivided land he owned into five
parcels, identifying them as Lots 535-A to 535-E.
3. He sold one parcel, designated as No. 535-E, to his brother
Eulogio Atilano II (Atilano 2) for P150. Lots 535-B, C and
D were sold to other people, while he kept the remaining
portion of land, presumably covered by title 535-A for
himself, which passed to defendant Ladislao Atilano after
Eulogio I passed away.
4. In 1952, after his wife died, Atilano 2 wanted to partition
Lot 535-A among himself and his children. They had the
land resurveyed, only to find out their lot was actually 535E, and not 535-A, while the land that Ladislao had
inherited from Atilano 1 was 535-A, and not 535-E. (The
titles on their respective deeds of sale were mixed up.)
5. Atilano 2 died, so his heirs instituted an action against
Ladislao offering up 535-A to Ladislao in exchange for
535-E, which they alleged was what was written in their
deed of sale (Since 535-E had a bigger area than 535-A,
2,612 sqm compared to 1,808 sqm).
6. Ladislaos defense was that the 1920 deed of sale to
Atilano 2 was an involuntary error, and that the intention of
the parties to that sale (Atilano 1 and Atilano 2) meant to
convey the lot correctly identified as 535-A, even if the
deed stated 535-E, on the basis that Atilano 1 had built a
house on this lot and had even increased its area while it
was in his possession by purchasing a lot next to it, before
it passed to Ladislao.
7. Ladislao then interposed a counterclaim that Atilano 2
execute in his favor the corresponding deed of transfer with
respect to 535-E.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the heirs of Atilano 2 are entitled to the real 535-E,
as stated in his deed of sale - NO
RULING: Judgment is affirmed. The plaintiffs are ordered to
execute a deed of conveyance of lot No. 535E in favor of the
defendants, and the latter, in turn, are ordered to execute a
similar document, covering lot No. 535A, in favor of the
plaintiffs.

RATIO:
1. When one sells or buys real property a piece of land,
for example 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.
2. In this case, the portion correctly referred to as lot No. 535A was already in the possession of the Atilano 2, who had
built a house on it even before Atilano 1 had sold it to him.
Atilano 1 had built a house for himself on the real 535-E,
and both brothers had lived on their respective lands for
years until the mistake was discovered in 1959.
3. The real issue here is not adverse possession, but the real
intention of the parties to that sale. From all the facts and
circumstances, the object of the sale between the Atilano
brothers was 535-A, even if the deed referred to it as 535E, which was a simple mistake in the drafting of the
document. The mistake did not vitiate the consent of the
parties or affect the validity and binding effect of the
contract between them.
4. The proper remedy to such mistake is reformation of the
instrument. This remedy is available when, there having
been a meeting of the funds 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 on accident (Art. 1359, et seq.)
In this case, there is no need to reform the 1920 deed of
sale since the parties retained possession 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.