RITA SARMING ET AL VS.

CRESENCIO DY ET AL
G.R. No. 133643
QUISUMBING, J.:

FACTS:

A controversy arose regarding the sale of Lot 4163 which was

half-owned by the original defendant, Silveria Flores, although it was
solely registered under her name. The other half was originally
owned by Silveria’s brother, Jose. On January 1956, the heirs of
Jose entered into a contract with plaintiff Alejandra Delfino, for the
sale of their one-half share of Lot 4163 after offering the same to
their co-owner, Silveria, who declined for lack of money. Silveria did
not object to the sale of said portion to Alejandra.

Atty. Deogracias Pinili, Alejandra’s lawyer then prepared the

document of sale. In the preparation of the document however, OCT
no. 4918-A, covering Lot 5734, and not the correct title covering Lot
4163 was the one delivered to Pinili.

Unaware of the mistake committed, Alejandra immediately

took possession of Lot 4163 and introduced improvements on the
said lot.

Two years later, when Alejandra Delfino purchased the

adjoinin portion of the lot she had been occupying, she discovered
that what was designated in the deed, Lot 5734, was the wrong lot.
Thus, Alejandra and the vendors filed for the feformation of the Deed
of Sale.

ISSUE:

Whether or not reformation is proper in this case.

DECISION:

The Court ruled that reformation is proper in the case at bar.

Reformation is that remedy in equity by means of which a written
instrument is made or construed so as to express or inform to the
real intention of the parties.

An action for reformation of instrument under this provision of

law may prosper only upon the concurrence of the following
requisites:
(1) there must have been a meeting of the minds of the
parties to the contract;
(2) the instrument does not express the true intention of
the parties; and
(3) the failure of the instrument to express the true
intention of the parties is due to mistake, fraud,
inequitable conduct or accident.
 All of these requisites are present in this case. There was a
meeting of the minds between the parties to the contract but the
deed did not express the true intention ot the parties due to the
designation of the lot subject of the deed. There is no dispute as to
the intention of the parties to sell the land to Alejandra Delfino but
there was a mistake as to the designation of the lot intended to be
sold as stated in the Settlement of Estate and Sale.