FACTS:

- In 1916, Eulogio Atilano I (Atilano 1) acquired by purchase from one Gerardo Villanueva lot No. 535.
- In 1920, Atilano I subdivided land he owned into five parcels, identifying them as Lots 535-A to 535-E.
- He sold one parcel, designated as No. 535-E, to his brother Eulogio Atilano II (Atilano 2) for P150. Lots 535-B, C and D were sold to
other people, while he kept the remaining portion of land, presumably covered by title 535-A for himself, which passed to
defendant Ladislao Atilano after Eulogio I passed away.
-In 1952, after his wife died, Atilano 2 wanted to partition Lot 535-A among himself and his children. They had the land resurveyed,
only to find out their lot was actually 535E, and not 535-A, while the land that Ladislao had inherited from Atilano 1 was 535-A, and
not 535-E. (The titles on their respective deeds of sale were mixed up.)
-Atilano 2 died, so his heirs instituted an action against Ladislao offering up 535-A to Ladislao in exchange for 535-E, which they
alleged was what was written in their deed of sale (Since 535-E had a bigger area than 535-A, 2,612 sqm compared to 1,808 sqm).
-Ladislao’s defense was that the 1920 deed of sale to Atilano 2 was an involuntary error, and that the intention of the parties to that
sale (Atilano 1 and Atilano 2) meant to convey the lot correctly identified as 535-A, even if the deed stated 535-E, on the basis that
Atilano 1 had built a house on this lot and had even increased its area while it was in his possession by purchasing a lot next to it,
before it passed to Ladislao.
-Ladislao then interposed a counterclaim that Atilano 2 execute in his favor the corresponding deed of transfer with
respect to 535-E.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the heirs of Atilano 2 are entitled to the real 535-E, as stated in his deed of sale -?
NO
RULING. The plaintiffs are ordered to execute a deed of conveyance of lot No. 535E in favor of the defendants, and the latter, in
turn, are ordered to execute a similar document, covering lot No. 535A, in favor of the plaintiffs. When one sells or buys real
property — a piece of land, for example — one sells or buys the property as he sees it, in its actual setting and by its physical metes
and bounds, and not by the mere lot number assigned to it in the certificate of title. In this case, the portion correctly referred to as
lot No. 535A was already in the possession of the Atilano 2, who had built a house on it even before Atilano 1 had sold it to him.
Atilano 1 had built a house for himself on the real 535-E, and both brothers had lived on their respective lands for years until the
mistake was discovered in 1959. The real issue here is not adverse possession, but the real intention of the parties to that sale. From
all the facts and circumstances, the object of the sale between the Atilano brothers was 535-A, even if the deed referred to it as
535E, which was a simple mistake in the drafting of the document. The mistake did not vitiate the consent of the parties or affect
the validity and binding effect of the contract between them. The proper remedy to such mistake is reformation of the instrument.
This remedy is available when, there having
been a meeting of the funds of the parties to a contract, their true intention is not expressed in the instrument
purporting to embody the agreement by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct on accident (Art. 1359, et seq.)
In this case, there is no need to reform the 1920 deed of sale since the parties retained possession their respective
properties conformably to the real intention of the parties to that sale, and all they should do is to execute mutual deeds
of conveyance.