Title
Atilano vs. Atilano
Case
G.R. No. L-22487
Decision Date
May 21, 1969
A 1920 land sale mistakenly identified Lot 535-E instead of 535-A. SC ruled the error was unintentional, upheld true intent, and ordered mutual deeds to correct ownership.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22487)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Acquisition of the original parcel
    • In 1916, Eulogio Atilano I purchased Lot No. 535 from Gerardo Villanueva and secured Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1134 in his name.
  • Subdivision and initial sales (1920)
    • The entire Lot No. 535 was subdivided into Lots Nos. 535-A, 535-B, 535-C, 535-D and 535-E.
    • On May 18, 1920, Eulogio I sold “Lot No. 535-E” to his brother, Eulogio II, for ₱150.00; Eulogio II obtained TCT No. 3129.
    • Lots 535-B, 535-C and 535-D were sold to third parties; Eulogio I retained the portion known as Lot 535-A, which upon his death passed to Ladislao Atilano, issued TCT No. T-5056.
  • Subsequent registrations and possession
    • On December 6, 1952, Eulogio II (now a widower) and his children registered co-ownership of “Lot No. 535-E” under TCT No. 4889.
    • In July 1959, a resurvey revealed that the vendee actually occupied Lot 535-A and the vendor Lot 535-E, contrary to the deed’s lot numbers.
  • Litigious proceedings (1960)
    • On January 25, 1960, the heirs of Eulogio II filed suit to exchange possession—offering Lot 535-A for Lot 535-E—which the defendants refused.
    • The defendants counterclaimed, alleging an involuntary drafting error in the 1920 deed: the sale intended Lot 535-A, not 535-E; they also asserted adverse possession and sought issuance of a proper deed for Lot 535-E.
  • Trial court decision
    • The Court of First Instance ruled for the plaintiffs solely on the ground that, under the Torrens system, registered titles cannot be acquired by prescription.
    • The trial court did not address the defendants’ mistake claim.

Issues:

  • Was there an involuntary error in the lot designation of the May 18, 1920 deed of sale?
  • What was the true intention of the parties in that deed—conveyance of Lot 535-A or Lot 535-E?
  • Is the remedy of reformation under Articles 1359 et seq. of the New Civil Code applicable?
  • Can the defendants acquire registered land by adverse possession under the Land Registration Act?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.