RITA SARMING, RUFINO SARMING, MANUEL SARMING, LEONORA VDA.

DE LOY,
ERLINDA DARMING, NICANDRA SARMING, MANSUETA SARMING, ARTURO CORSAME,
FELY CORSAME, FEDERICO CORSAME, ISABELITA CORSAME, NORMA CORSAME, CESAR
CORSAME, RUDY CORSAME, ROBERTA CORSAME, ARTEMIO CORSAME, ELPIDIO
CORSAME, ENRIQUITA CORSAME, and GUADALUPE CORSAME TAN, petitioners,
vs.
CRESENCIO DY, LUDIVINA DY-CHAN, TRINIDAD FLORES, LUISA FLORES, SATURNINA
ORGANISTA, REMEDIOS ORGANISTA, OFELIA ORGANISTA, LYDIA ORGANISTA, ZOSIMO
ORGANISTA, DOMISIANO FLORES, FLORITA FLORES, EDUARDO FLORES, BENIGNA
FLORES, ANGELINA FLORES, MARCIAL FLORES, and MARIO FLORES, respondents.

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 adjoining 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 reformation of the Deed of Sale

ISSUE:
- W/N reformation is proper in this case.

RULING:
- 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 of 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.
- WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39401 is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION. It is hereby ordered that the document entitled Settlement of Estate and
Sale be reformed by changing the phrase "Lot 5734" to "Lot 4163" found in the sixth paragraph
of the deed, thereby ceding in favor of respondents one-half portion of Lot 4163 instead of Lot
5734.