Aimar
CASE NO. 103 Aimar
AGASEN VS. CA
FACTS: Private respondent Bilog sued herein petitioners for Recovery of
Possession and Ownership involving a parcel of land registered in her name
under TCT No. T-16109. Petitioners, in their answer, claimed that they became
the owners of the subject land by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale in their
favour, and by a notarized Partition with Sale. The trial court found for the
validity of petitioners’ documents, dismissed the complaint and declared TCT
No. 16109 in the name of private respondent null and void. On appeal, the CA
reversed the decision of the lower court and ruled that private respondent’s
testimonial and documentary evidence , “junked, petitioners’ documents. Thus#
this petition.
ISSUE: WON the two documents, relied upon by petitioners as basis for their
claim of ownership, are valid.
RULING: YES. It is not denied that the two subject documents are notarized
documents and, as such, are considered public documents which enjoy the
presumption of validity as to authenticity and due execution. The following
circumstances all indicate the genuineness and due execution of the subject
documents: (1) The subject documents were duly notarized public documents;
(2) The documents enjoy the legal presumption of validity; (3) Their
genuineness and due execution were not specifically denied under oath by
private respondent; (4) Private respondents signature thereon were found
genuine by the lower court upon a comparison of her signature thereon with
that in her own documentary evidence; (5) The actual identification and
positive testimony of petitioner; and (6) The testimony of the lawyer who had
notarized one of the subject documents. Private respondents bare denial of the
same cannot, by any measure, overcome the above-mentioned evidence and
legal presumptions in petitioners favor.
MAIN POINT: Article 1358 of the Civil Code which requires the embodiment of
certain contracts in a public instrument, is only for convenience, and
registration of the instrument only adversely affects third parties. Formal
requirements are, therefore, for the benefit of third parties. Non-compliance
therewith does not adversely affect the validity of the contract nor the
contractual rights and obligations of the parties thereunder."
CASE NO. 104
DALLION V. CA
FACTS: Petitioner Segundo Dalion allegedly sold his property in Southern Leyte
to respondent Ruperto Sabesaje through a private deed of sale. Dalion denies
the sale and claims that his signature in the document was forged.
ISSUE: WON there has been a contract of sale between the parties.
HELD: The authenticity of the signature of Dallion was proven by the testimony
of several witness including the person who made the deed of sale. Dalion never
presented any evidence or witness to prove his claim of forgery. Dallion’s claim
that the sale is invalid because it was not made in a public document is of no
merit. This argument is misplaced.
MAINPOINT: The provision of Art. 1358 on the necessity of a public document
is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability. It is not a requirement
for the validity of a contract of sale of a parcel of land that this be embodied in a
public instrument. Sale is perfected upon meeting of the minds of both parties.
Aimar
CASE NO. 105
ATILANO VS. ATILANO
FACTS: 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 I’s
lot pertained to the lot sold to Atilano II, and the latter’s title conversely
pertained to the lot of Atilano I which had a much bigger area. Atilano II’s family
sought to obtain the land on the force of the title. The Court denied their plea.
ISSUE: WON the heirs of Atilano 2 are entitled to the real 535-E, as stated in his
deed of sale.
HELD: NO. 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.
MAINPOINT: 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.
Aimar
CASE NO. 106
ROSELLO-BENTIR VS. LEANDRA
FACTS: Facts: Respondent Leyte Gulf Traders, Inc. (herein referred to as
respondent corporation) filed a complaint for reformation of instrument,
specific performance, annulment of conditional sale and damages with prayer
for writ of injunction against petitioners. Respondent corporation alleged that it
entered into a contract of lease of a parcel of land with petitioner for a period of
twenty (20) years starting May 5, 1968. According to respondent corporation,
the lease was extended for another four (4) years or until May 31, 1992. On May
5, 1989, petitioner Bentir sold the leased premises to petitioner spouses Samuel
Pormada and Charito Pormada. Respondent corporation questioned the sale
alleging that it had a right of first refusal. Rebuffed, it filed Civil Case No. 92-05-
88 seeking the reformation of the expired contract of lease on the ground that
its lawyer inadvertently omitted to incorporate in the contract of lease executed
in 1968, the verbal agreement or understanding between the parties that in the
event petitioner Bentir leases or sells the lot after the expiration of the lease,
respondent corporation has the right to equal the highest offer.
ISSUE: 1. Whether the complaint for reformation filed by respondent Leyte Gulf
Traders, Inc. has prescribed
2. Whether it is entitled to the remedy of reformation sought
HELD: 1 YES, 2. NO. In the case at bar, respondent corporation had ten (10)
years from 1968, the time when the contract of lease was executed, to file an
action for reformation. Sadly, it did so only on May 15, 1992 or twenty-four (24)
years after the cause of action accrued, hence, its cause of action has become
stale, hence, time-barred.
MAINPOINT: The prescriptive period for actions based upon a written contract
and for reformation of an instrument is ten (10) years under Article 1144 of the
Civil Code. Prescription is intended to suppress stale and fraudulent claims
arising from transactions . . . which facts had become so obscure from the lapse
of time or defective memory.
Aimar
CASE NO. 107
MULTI-VENTURES VS STALWART MANAGEMENT
FACTS: In 1991, Multi-Ventures Capital and Management Corporation filed a
Complaint for Reformation of Instrument against Stalwart Management and its
officers. It is alleged that respondent obtained from the former a loan but for
purposes of expediency, said transaction was denominated as a sale whereby
petitioner bought from respondent various Land Bank bonds; that the bonds
serve as a partial collateral for the payment of the loan. Respondent, on the
other hand, claim, among others, that both petitioner and respondent are
companies engaged in dealing and trading government securities. That the
transaction stated in the present controversy is really a purchase of Land Bank
bonds, and there is no mistake, fraud, or accident in the preparation of the true
agreement of the parties such that reformation is called for.
ISSUE: WON the contract entered into by Multi-Ventures Capital and
Management Corporation and Stalwart Management Services Corporation is
one of loan or sale.
HELD: The transaction between the parties was one of sale and not of loan. In
order that an action for reformation of instrument may prosper, the following
requisites must concur:
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.
MAIN POINT: In the present case, there is no question that there was a meeting
of the minds between the parties. The transaction of sale entered into by the
parties on January 1991 is accurately expressed in the Confirmation of
Agreement. Petitioner, however, failed to show that mistake, fraud, inequitable
conduct or accident attended the execution of the agreement such that their
true intention was not reflected. Petitioner, therefore, has no cause of action for
its reformation.
Petition is denied.
Aimar
CASE NO. 108
RITA SARMING, et. al vs. CRESENCIO DY
did not do so, prompting Alejandra and the vendors to file a complaint against
Silveria for reformation of the deed of sale.
ISSUE: WON a reformation of the contract can take place
RULING: YES. 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
mistake in 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. ARTICLE 1359

FACTS: After the death of Valentina, her three children, namely: Jose, Venancio,
and Silveria, took possession of Lot 5734 with each occupying a one-third
portion. Upon their death, their children and grandchildren took possession of
their respective shares. The other parcel, Lot 4163 which is solely registered
under the name of Silveria, was sub-divided between Silveria and Jose. The
grandchildren of Jose and now owners of one-half of Lot 4163, entered into a
contract with plaintiff Alejandra Delfino, for the sale of 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 Delfino.
The late Atty. Pinili, Alejandra's lawyer, called Silveria and the heirs of Venancio
to a conference where Silveria declared that she owned half of the lot while the
other half belonged to the vendors; and that she was selling her three coconut
trees found in the half portion offered to Alejandra Delfino for P15. When Pinili
asked for the title of the land, Silveria Flores, through her daughter, Cristita
Corsame, delivered Original Certificate of Title No. 4918-A, covering Lot No.
5734, and not the correct title covering Lot 4163. At that time, the parties knew
the location of Lot 4163 but not the OCT Number corresponding to 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. She sought the assistance of Pinili who approached
Silveria and together they inquired from the Registry of Deeds about the status
of Lot 4163. They found out that OCT No. 3129-A covering Lot 4163 was still on
file. Alejandra Delfino paid the necessary fees so that the title to Lot 4163 could
be released to Silveria Flores, who promised to turn it over to Pinili for the
reformation of the deed of sale. However, despite repeated demands, Silveria