GARCIA v BISAYA
Hence, it should not be dismissed due to
97 Phil 609, September 28, 1955
FACTS:
 On May 20, 1952, Garcia filed a complaint against
Bisaya alleging that on November 12, 1938, the latter
executed a deed of sale; that the parcel of land in the
deed was an unregistered land, but in fact it is registered
to a certain Sandoval – that despite demand by Garcia,
Bisaya refused to correct such error.
 Garcia prayed for judgment ordering Bisaya to make
the correction and reform the deed of sale.
 Garcia denied executing the deed of sale and pleaded
prescription as a defense (10 years for written
contracts).
 Lower court dismissed the case on the ground that
Garcia’s action had already prescribed.
 Garcia appealed that the case should not be dismissed
on the ground of prescription since he discovered the
error in the deed of sale only recently.
ISSUE:
WON the case should be dismissed on the ground of
prescription
HELD:
 No. Garcia could not have instituted his action to
correct an error in the deed until that error was
discovered. It was not proven that the error was
discovered more than ten years before the action was
filed.
prescription.
 BUT, it should be dismissed for lack of cause of action
of the complaint. It failed to allege that the deed does
not express the real agreement of the parties. Such
allegation is essential since the objective in an action
for reformation is to make an instrument conform to the
real agreement or intention of the parties.
 Courts do not reform instruments for the sake of it, but
to enable some party to assert rights under the reform. If
reformation will be applied by stating that the land is
already covered by a TCT under Sandoval, what right
will Garcia be able to assert as a vendee? He would be
in the position of knowingly purchased a property not
belonging to Bisaya, the vendor. Perhaps Garcia’s real
grievance is that Bisaya misled him that the land was
unregistered. If that’s the case, the proper remedy is not
reformation but annulment of the contract (Art. 1359,
par. 2)
 SC affirmed lower court’s dismissal but for lack of
cause of action of the complaint.
DOCTRINE:
Art. 1359, par. 2: 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.