ONG CHUA vs.EDWARD CARR, ET AL.

,
G.R. No. L-29512
OSTRAND, J.:

FACTS:

Henry Teck and Magdalena Lim owns some land which they
sold to Ong Chua, with the right to repurchase within 4 years. The
land was later sold by Ong to Edward Carr. In the deed of sale
however, the right to repurchase was removed, without the
knowledge of Ong, in order for Carr to obtain a loan using the land.

When the spouses Teck and Lim offered to repurchase the

property, Carr refused, claiming that he has absolute title to the
property. Ong then filed a case for the reformation of the deed which
was granted by the lower court. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the reformation of the deed should be granted?

DECISION:

Yes. Carr’s conduct was tainted with fraud, which was

established beyond a doubt and not by mere preponderance of
evidence. Hence, since there was mistake by one party, and fraud
in the other, the party who was mistaken has the right to demand the
reformation of the contract.

Also, it is conclusive in the evidence that the plaintiff had no

clear conception of the contents of the deed. That he was anxious
to protect the rights of redemption held by the parties who sold the
land to him, is very obvious; indeed, if he had failed to do so, he
would have laid himself open to an action for damages. But the deed
was written in the English language, with which the plaintiff was
unfamiliar, and he had to rely on the statements of Moore as to the
contents and effect of the deed and was told that the document was
sufficient. He had confidence in Moore, with whom he had previous
business relations, and it was but natural for him to believe Moore’s
statement.