In annulment, there has been no meeting of the minds, the consent of one of the parties being

vitiated by violence or intimidation or mistake or fraud.

If A was selling his land “excluding” the improvements and B was buying his land “including”
the improvements, then, there has been no meeting of the minds and the remedy, therefore, is
annulment.
1359
After researching about the article, I stumbled upon the case of Dizon vs. Gaborro, 83 SCRA
688-691. The two parties, Dizon and Gamboa agreed upon a contract which Gaborro will be
buying the mortgaged property of Dizon in exchange for the rights of the land. However, after
the execution of the contract, Dizon wanted to reimburse Gaborro’s payment to the bank to get
back the rights for the land which Gaborro rejected. This which caused a disagreement between
them, wherein Dizon filed a case which says that Gaborro did not initially discussed his true
intentions to the contract. Is the case of Dizon viable even if both the party agreed initially to the
contract which was already executed?
https://lspuoblicon2017blog.wordpress.com/2017/05/12/article-1359/
No, this will not be viable because Gaborro’s true intentions was not met and agreed by the
plaintiff or Mr. Dizon. Since there is a disagreement between them, one of the requisites for
reformation is not applied; hence, an annulment of the case. Also, as far as I know, Dizon
and Gaborro’s first two contracts talked about assumption of mortgage and option to
purchase only. So, I think the true agreement between Dizon and Gaborro is that Gaborro
would only assume and pay the indebtedness of Dizon to the banks the mortgage occurred.
Hence, Dizon has no right for reimbursement since the initial contracts do not have any
statement about it.
1360
It is stated that the reformation of the instrument can be fulfilled if it does not conflict in the
stated provisions of the code. In a case where the contract entered a conflict to the code what
principles should be governed in order to resolve the case?
In my research, it is stated that article 17 is the governing law to article 1360. How does the law
affect article 1360?

In case of having a conflict, the civil code should be the one that will govern whilst the
principles of the general law on reformation (or the requisites) should have suppletory
effect. The suppletory effect means uhmmm that the requisites would give an additional
support in the trial in order for the civil code to be applied and prevail.
As far as I know, article 17 talks about the solemnities of contracts and other instruments;
that these instruments must be governed by the laws of the country in which they are
carried out or implemented. So, I think, article 17 affects article 1360 by requiring every
contract to have the state of being dignified or to have a quality of seriousness; so that, once
the contract is carried out in a foreign country, the solemnities established by the laws of
the Philippines will be observed in the trial court or execution.
1361
In my research about the article I have noticed that the common issue is that the instrument being
reformed was not reflected in the agreement of the contract of the party. What do you think is the
reasoning behind this?
For me, the reason behind this common issue is the mistakes held by their typewriter
operator are, somehow, NOT noticeable, even if they are commas, periods, phrase and
other small other errors. Contract mistakes typically occur when terms or phrases or uhm,
definitions are not clearly understood in the contract. Some small errors include delivery
dates, sales prices, uhmm, currency symbol errors (let’s say the contract should state a peso
sign but the contract states a dollar sign or the peso sign used was letter “P” instead of its
real symbol).

1362
Why does the party who acted by mistake has the proper right to raise a reformation issue on an
instrument even if the mistake was unilateral to both parties? And is there an existing list of
factors that determines that the party who were claiming that they acted by mistake is saying the
truth?
To clarify the question, unilateral means “performed by only one person or group”
so uhm, I think this question is connected with the situation where one party clearly
admitted the mistake and the other acted inequitably or unfairly. With this situation,
whoever in one of the parties acted truthfully, that party will have the right for raising the
action of reformation since the opposing party performs dishonesty.
There is no existing list of factors to determine whether that party is stating the fact
or not. Instead, in this case, I think there will be an acted legal trial on both parties to
determine whether one of them acted fraudulently. Uhm, the court will be the one to state
or decide if the party that is guilty or is stating the truth.
1363
What are the factors that determine that a party is bad or good faith?
It is stated that the mistakes were concealed behind that contract, then is there a period where a
party can complain about the mistake in the agreement? If yes, can the party still complain when
it is already late when they realized the mistake?
A party will be determined as good or bad by the Judge through the trial court.
Factors to consider are the witnesses. The judge alone determines the truthfulness and
accuracy of the testimony of each witness. He must decide whether a witness told the truth
and was accurate, or instead, testified falsely or was mistaken.
Yes, a party can complain anytime they see an error in the contract. Once the
concealment is disclosed even if it is late, in Mrs. Dy’s case in the last slide, for example,
where stealing of money or fraud occurred, the money stolen will be returned to the real
owner after the immediate reformation of the instrument.

1365
How can you say that the instrument in the mortgage was already sold absolutely or having the
right to repurchase?

1369
Can you elaborate the said Rules of the Court which will govern the procedure of reformation as
said by the article?

1370
Based on my research, if doubt is present at the execution of the contract being appealed to the
court by two parties, the evident intention of each party will play a role on the decision of the
court. How does this said evident intention process and how it affects the decision of the court?

1380
1381