Title
Banico vs. Stager
Case
G.R. No. 232825
Decision Date
Sep 16, 2020
Lydia sold Ulysses an 800-sq m lot in Boracay, but the deed mistakenly described the wrong portion. Ulysses sought reformation, which the Supreme Court granted, ruling the deed failed to reflect their true intent. Ulysses owed a small balance for an additional 400-sq m lot, and no damages were awarded.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232825)

Petitioner

Ulysses Rudi Banico, assailing the Court of Appeals’ denial of reformation and contending full payment of the second lot and entitlement to damages.

Respondents

Heirs of Lydia Bernadette M. Stager: Bobby Unilongo I, Prospero Unilongo I & II, Maricon U. Bayog, Glenn Unilongo, Luzviminda Unilongo.

Key Dates

• 1991 – Offer by Lydia to sell entire Lot 199; Banico agrees to purchase only a buildable portion.
• February 8, 1992 – Deed of Absolute Sale executed over an 800 sq m portion for ₱350,000.
• October 19, 1992 – Contract to sell additional 400 sq m for ₱160,000 on installment.
• December 6, 2001 – Lydia presents a notarized amended deed correctly describing the 800 sq m lot; Banico refuses to sign (asserted unpaid balance).
• July 9, 2002 – Banico files for specific performance and damages in the RTC.
• February 18, 2015 – RTC orders reformation of the February 8, 1992 deed and computes a ₱6,600 unpaid balance on the 400 sq m lot; denies damages.
• February 22, 2017 – CA denies reformation (prescription), reduces unpaid balance to ₱5,860, orders deed upon payment, and denies damages.
• September 16, 2020 – Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• New Civil Code: Art. 1305 (contract), Art. 1359 (reformation), Art. 1144 (prescription for written contracts, 10 years), Art. 1155 (interruption by written acknowledgment)
• Jurisprudence on reformation (e.g., Dihiansan, Atilano, Sarming) and prescription

Antecedents and Contemporaneous Acts

Banico paid the ₱350,000 purchase price for what he believed was the flat, buildable 800 sq m portion and immediately occupied, surveyed, and developed it. He later discovered the deed described the elevated rocky northerly portion. Lydia did not object to his occupation, promised to correct the deed, and even sold him an adjacent 400 sq m tract under a contract to sell. At a barangay conference in 2001 Lydia acknowledged the correct description of the 800 sq m lot by executing a notarized deed.

Procedural History

RTC (2015):

  • Reformed the February 8, 1992 deed to reflect the flat 800 sq m portion.
  • Found a ₱6,600 unpaid balance on the 400 sq m contract to sell.
  • Denied damages for lack of substantial breach or bad faith.

CA (2017):

  • Denied reformation as time-barred (filed beyond 10 years from 1992 deed).
  • Reduced unpaid balance to ₱5,860 based on admitted receipts.
  • Ordered heirs to execute the 400 sq m deed upon payment.
  • Denied damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the February 8, 1992 deed may be reformed for mutual mistake.
  2. Whether the action is barred by prescription.
  3. The correct unpaid balance under the 400 sq m contract to sell.
  4. Entitlement to damages.

Supreme Court Ruling

  1. Reformation granted. All requisites are met:
    ­• Meeting of the minds on an 800 sq m flat parcel.
    ­• Deed failed to express that intention due to a mutual mistake in technical description.
    ­• Contemporaneous and subsequent acts (possession, promise to amend, December 2001 deed) confirm true intent.
    ­• Lawyer’s drafting error does not preclude reformation when non-expert parties relied on physical metes and bounds.

  2. Prescription interrupted. The notarized December 6, 2001 deed constituted a written acknowledgment under Art. 1155, resetting the 10-year period. The Ju

...continue reading

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