Held:- Yes, Juanito has a superior right over the lot in dispute.Ratio:SC cites the ruling of the CA which states that the records show that the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition contained a mistake by the adjudication of Lot 6297 to Adeloand of Lot 6270 to Juanito, and the necessity to rectify the error arose. AMemorandum of Exchange was executed, however, for reasons beyond theintervention of the parties, the memorandum had the same mistake and no exchangewas effected.However, the voluntary and active participation in the execution of the memorandumclearly demonstrated a recognition of the mistake in the instrument of partition. Theintent to effect the exchange was strongly manifested in the voluntary subscription tothe instrument. By this voluntary subscription, Lynn is estopped from negating theexistence of a mistake in the partition.SC agrees with the CA in stating that it would be highly illogical and absurd for theparties to execute a memorandum of exchange if there was nothing to exchange atall. The purpose was precisely to rectify and effect the correct adjudication of the twolots. The parol evidence rule, as applied by the RTC, is not absolute and has exceptions. Aparty may present evidence to modify, explain, or add to the terms of the agreementif he puts in his pleading a mistake in the written agreement. The
elements of amistake
are: the mistake should be of fact, it should be mutual or common to bothparties to the instrument, and it should be alleged and proved by clear andconvincing evidence. In this case, all three elements are present, and there was amistake in the partition. The mere fact of execution of a memorandum of exchangeindicates the existence of a mistake in the partition which the parties sought tocorrect. The
strongest evidence of mistake
is the admission by Lynn in his petition forreview on certiorari, wherein he states that because of mutual mistake, thememorandum failed to express the agreement of the parties to exchange theproperties. A
conclusively binds the party making it unless it wasshown that the admission was made through palpable mistake or that no admissionwas made.
(just in case it will be asked) whether the free patent granted to Lynnover Lot 6297 should be declared null and void. Yes it should. SC affirmed CA decision to declare free patent grant null and void. The requirements of free patent are that the applicant must have continuouslyoccupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, thetract or tracts of agricultural public lands, that the applicant shall have paid the realestate tax, and that the land has not been occupied by any person. Although Lynn’spetition was granted wherein it was stated that the applicant complied with all the