Scribd
Upload
56 views2 pages

Sarming V Dy

The document discusses a case regarding the reformation of a deed of sale for a lot. The original defendant's brother jointly owned a lot with the defendant, and the brother's heirs sold their half share to the plaintiff. However, due to a mistake, the deed listed the wrong lot number. The plaintiff filed for reformation of the deed to correct the mistake. The court ruled reformation was proper as there was a meeting of minds between the parties, but the deed did not express their true intention due to the mistaken lot designation.

Uploaded by

Dexter Gascon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
56 views2 pages

Sarming V Dy

The document discusses a case regarding the reformation of a deed of sale for a lot. The original defendant's brother jointly owned a lot with the defendant, and the brother's heirs sold their half share to the plaintiff. However, due to a mistake, the deed listed the wrong lot number. The plaintiff filed for reformation of the deed to correct the mistake. The court ruled reformation was proper as there was a meeting of minds between the parties, but the deed did not express their true intention due to the mistaken lot designation.

Uploaded by

Dexter Gascon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SARMING VS.

DY, 383 SCRA 131

G.R. No. 133643 June 6, 2002

Facts: Petitioners are the succesors-in-interest of original defendant Silveria Flores,


while respondents Cresencio Dy and Ludivina Dy-Chan are the succesors-in-interest of
the original plaintiff Alejandra Delfino, the buyer of one of the lots subject of this case.
They were joined in this petition by the successors-in-interest of Isabel, Juan, Hilario,
Ruperto, Tomasa, and Luisa and Trinidad themselves, all surnamed Flores, who were
also the original plaintiffs in the lower court. They are the descendants of Venancio and
Jose, the brothers of the original defendant Silveria Flores.
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 adjoinin 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 feformation of the Deed
of Sale.
Issue: Whether or not reformation is proper in this case.
Ruling: YES. 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 requesites 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 ot 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.

You might also like