Scribd
Upload
46 views1 page

Appellant Could Not Have Instituted His Action To Correct An Error in A Deed Until That Error Was Discovered. There Being Nothing in The

The plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants alleging that a deed of sale contained an error in describing the land as unregistered when it was actually part of a registered land title. Defendants denied executing the deed. The trial court dismissed the case based on prescription. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal but on the basis that the complaint failed to state a valid cause of action for reformation, as it did not allege that the instrument did not reflect the true agreement of the parties. Reformation is meant to reflect the actual agreement, not create a new one.

Uploaded by

Danica Caballes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
46 views1 page

Appellant Could Not Have Instituted His Action To Correct An Error in A Deed Until That Error Was Discovered. There Being Nothing in The

The plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants alleging that a deed of sale contained an error in describing the land as unregistered when it was actually part of a registered land title. Defendants denied executing the deed. The trial court dismissed the case based on prescription. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal but on the basis that the complaint failed to state a valid cause of action for reformation, as it did not allege that the instrument did not reflect the true agreement of the parties. Reformation is meant to reflect the actual agreement, not create a new one.

Uploaded by

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

Garcia v.

Bisaya
Facts: “Appellant's complaint states no cause of action, for it
 On May 20, 1952, plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants, fails to allege that the instrument to be reformed does not
alleging that on November 12, 1938, defendants executed in favor express the real agreement or intention of the parties. Such
of plaintiff a deed of sale covering a parcel of land. allegation is essential since the object sought in an action for
 That the said land "was erroneously designated by the parties in the
reformation is to make an instrument conform to be real
deed of sale as an unregistered land when in truth and in fact said
land is a portion of a big mass of land registered under Original agreement or intention of the parties. It is not the function of
Certicate of Title No. 6579"; the remedy to make a new agreement, but to establish and
 That despite persistent demand from plaintiff to have the error perpetuate the true existing one.”
corrected, defendants have refused to do so.
 Plaintiff, therefore, prayed for judgment ordering defendants to
make the aforesaid correction in the deed of sale.
 Answering the complaint, defendants denied having executed the
alleged deed of sale and pleaded prescription as a defense.
 Traversing the plea of prescription, plaintiff alleged, among other
things, that he "was without knowledge of the error sought to be
corrected at the time the deed of sale was executed and for many
years thereafter, having discovered the said error "only recently".
 Trial Court Dimissed the case on the basis of prescription.
Issue: Whether petition must be dismissed on the basis of prescription?
Ruling:
Yes, but not because appellant's action has already prescribed, but
because his complaint states no cause of action.
Both appellant and appellees apparently regard the present action as
one for the reformation of an instrument under Chapter 4, Title II, Book
IV of the new Civil Code. Specically, the object sought is the correction
of an alleged mistake in a deed of sale covering a piece of land. The
action being upon a written contract, it should prescribe in ten years
counted from the day it could have been instituted. Obviously,
appellant could not have instituted his action to correct an error in
a deed until that error was discovered. There being nothing in the
pleadings to show that the error was discovered more than ten years
before the present action was led on May 20, 1952, while, on the other
hand, there is allegation that the error was discovered "only recently",
we think the action should not have been dismissed as having already
prescribed before the factual basis for prescription had been established
and clarified by evidence.

You might also like