Dear Atty. Nico,

I would like to consult a land dispute case.

I happen to own a parcel of land in Sto. Tomas, Batangas with an area of 400 sqm for a little over 20 years. I bought it at P300,000 from a pair of siblings, both selling their individual shares equally. We executed two deeds of absolute sale (DOAS), reflecting the respective shares of each sibling.

Thereafter, I exercised my right as an owner by constructing a fence surrounding the property as well as paying the real estate taxes thereof.

One day, a married couple intruded into my property and claimed that they are the real owners. They even presented a Transfer Certificate of Title, indicating that the subject property was registered under their name.

Eventually, I discovered that the lot named in my DOAS was a different property (area is 250 sqm), although owned by the same siblings I had transacted with. However, the measurement of the property area provided under our written agreement really pertained to the land in issue.

What is my remedy for this kind of problem? Thank you in advance for your legal advice.

Carlo

Dear Carlo,

In a Supreme Court decision, it was held that in case a contract of sale is valid but does not reflect the true intentions of the parties therein, the same requires a reformation of the document.

In the case of Spouses Abay v Spouses Jacinto S. Young, et al. (G.R. No. 266298), it is settled that a person buys real property not by its technical lot number but as they see the property in its actual setting, with its visible monuments, boundaries and improvements. The lot number appearing in the document of sale is not, by itself, determinative of the identity of the land conveyed.

In several cases (Atilano vs Atilano, Sarming vs Dy, and Banico vs Stager), the Court recognized that the true agreement of the parties to a contract of sale of a piece of land may not be properly reflected in the deed of sale, which may mistakenly identify the land as different from what was actually sold by the vendor. In such a case, the contract of sale is deemed valid although the written deed must be reformed to conform to the actual agreement of the parties.

In the foregoing cases, the sale was considered valid and reformation was allowed provided that the following requisites are met:

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.

Applying the said ruling, all the requisites of reformation are present in the case.

First, there was a meeting of the minds between you and the siblings, as evidenced by the DOAS. This document reveals the intent of the latter to transfer ownership of their respective shares in the subject property to you as its buyer for a price certain.

Second, the foregoing DOAS does not express the true intention of the parties. Intention, as a state of mind, may be inferred from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the contracting parties such as the construction of a fence to indicate ownership as well as payment of real property taxes.

Third, the DOAS failed to accurately express the true agreement of the parties, by mistake. The property indicated therein was a parcel of land with an area of only 250 sqm, when what was agreed upon referred to the property which had 400 sqm.

Atty. Nico Antonio