Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 146 views

    Atilano Vs Atilano

    Uploaded by

    Maria Danice Angela
    Atilano I subdivided a land parcel and sold portions to others, including lot 535-E to his brother Atilano II. However, a later survey found that Atilano II was occupying lot 353-A instead of 535-E, while Atilano I's heir Ladislao possessed lot 353-E instead of 535-A. Atilano II's heirs filed a case to exchange lots, but the defendants claimed the deed referenced the wrong lot numbers due to mistake. The court found the real intention was to sell lot 535-A, not 535-E as written, and ordered the parties to execute deeds conveying the correct lots.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Atilano Vs Atilano

    Uploaded by

    Maria Danice Angela
    146 views3 pages
    Atilano I subdivided a land parcel and sold portions to others, including lot 535-E to his brother Atilano II. However, a later survey found that Atilano II was occupying lot 353-A instead of 535-E, while Atilano I's heir Ladislao possessed lot 353-E instead of 535-A. Atilano II's heirs filed a case to exchange lots, but the defendants claimed the deed referenced the wrong lot numbers due to mistake. The court found the real intention was to sell lot 535-A, not 535-E as written, and ordered the parties to execute deeds conveying the correct lots.

    Original Description:

    digested case

    Original Title

    Atilano vs Atilano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Atilano I subdivided a land parcel and sold portions to others, including lot 535-E to his brother Atilano II. However, a later survey found that Atilano II was occupying lot 353-A instead of 535-E, while Atilano I's heir Ladislao possessed lot 353-E instead of 535-A. Atilano II's heirs filed a case to exchange lots, but the defendants claimed the deed referenced the wrong lot numbers due to mistake. The court found the real intention was to sell lot 535-A, not 535-E as written, and ordered the parties to execute deeds conveying the correct lots.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    146 views3 pages

    Atilano Vs Atilano

    Uploaded by

    Maria Danice Angela
    Atilano I subdivided a land parcel and sold portions to others, including lot 535-E to his brother Atilano II. However, a later survey found that Atilano II was occupying lot 353-A instead of 535-E, while Atilano I's heir Ladislao possessed lot 353-E instead of 535-A. Atilano II's heirs filed a case to exchange lots, but the defendants claimed the deed referenced the wrong lot numbers due to mistake. The court found the real intention was to sell lot 535-A, not 535-E as written, and ordered the parties to execute deeds conveying the correct lots.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Facts: In 1916, Atilano I acquired lot No. 535 by purchase.

    In 1920, he had the land subdivided into five parts,


    identified as lots Nos. 535-A, 535-B, 535-C, 535-D and
    535-E, respectively. After the subdivision had been
    effected, Atilano I executed a deed of salecovering lot No.
    535-E in favor of his brother Atilano II. Three other
    portions, namely, lots Nos. 535-B, 535-C, and 535-D, were
    likewise sold to other persons. Atilano I retained for
    himself the remaining portions of the land,
    presumably covered by the title to lot No. 535-A. upon his
    death, the title to this lot passed to Ladislao, in whose
    name the corresponding certificate was issued.
    On 1959, Atilano II and his children had the land
    resurveyed so that it could be properly subdivided.
    However, they discovered that the land they were actually
    occupying on the strength of the deed of sale was lot No.
    353-A and not lot 535-E, while the land which remained in
    the possession of Atilano I, and which was passed to
    Ladislao was lot No. 353-E and not lot No. 535-A.
    On 1960, the heirs of Atilano II alleging, inter alia, that they
    offered to surrender to the possession of lot No. 535-A and
    demanded in return the possession of lot No. 535-E, but
    the defendants refused to accept the exchange. The
    plaintiffs' insistence is quite understandable, since lot No.
    535-E has an area of 2,612 square meters as compared to
    the 1,808 square-meter area of lot No. 535-A.
    In their answer to the complaint, the defendants alleged
    that the reference to lot No. 535-E in the deed of sale was
    an involuntary error; that the intention of the parties to that
    sale was to convey the lot correctly identified as lot No.
    535-A. On the basis of the foregoing allegations
    the defendants interposed a counterclaim, praying that the
    plaintiffs be ordered to execute in their favor the
    corresponding deed of transfer with respect to Lot No.
    535-E.
    The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
    Issue: Whether or not there has been a valid sale in view
    of the real intention of the parties.
    Held: From the facts and circumstances, the object is lot
    No. 535-A and its designation as lot No. 535-E in the deed
    of sale was a simple mistake in the drafting of the
    document. The mistake did not vitiate the consent of the
    parties, or affect the validity and binding effect of the
    contract between them. The new Civil Code provides a
    remedy by means of reformation of the instrument. This
    remedy is available when, there having been a meeting of
    the minds of the parties to a contract, their true intention is
    not expressed in the instrument purporting to embody the
    agreement by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable
    conduct or accident
    In this case, the deed of sale executed in 1920 need no
    longer be reformed. The parties have retained possession
    of their respective properties conformably to the real
    intention of the parties to that sale, and all they should do
    is to execute mutual deed ofconveyance.
    Therefore, the judgment appealed from is reversed. The
    plaintiffs are ordered to execute a deed of conveyance of
    lot No. 535-E in favor of the defendants, and the latter, in
    turn, are ordered to execute a similar document, covering
    lot No. 535-A, in favor of the plaintiffs. Costs against the
    latter.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy