L V M H J D Law

L V M H J D Law Legaspi | Virtudazo | Manayon | Hamin | Jamin | Dayagbil

Full-Service Law Office

28/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a sale of land remains valid even if the deed of sale designates a different lot number from what was actually sold, as long as the parties’ true agreement can be clearly shown. The deed may then be corrected to match what the parties actually agreed to.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division upheld the sale of a 491-square-meter parcel of land in Cebu City between buyers Genara and Felipe Abay, Sr. (the Abays) and sellers Crispin Caballes and the heirs of Trinidad Caballes-Gallardo (the Gallardos), despite the mistake in the designation of the lot number in the deed of sale.

The property formed part of the estate of Margarita Lopez, who had nine children, including Crispin and Trinidad.

The Abays visited the site with Crispin and Tomas Gallardo, one of Trinidad’s heirs before buying the property. During the visit, they were showed them the land’s boundaries. Tomas even helped the Abays build a concrete fence around it.

The Abays openly occupied the property for about 20 years until their possession was disrupted when workers of spouses Jacinto and Chiok Ngo Lim Young (the Youngs), who are claiming ownership over the property, entered it, destroyed the fence, and built their own posts.

The Abays discovered that a title over the property had been issued in the Youngs’ name. This prompted them to file a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the title.

The Gallardos challenged this, arguing that the documents the Abays presented referred to a different lot, Lot No. 6036-B, and not the lot they were occupying, which was Lot No. 7. While both lots were located in the same area, they were separate properties and were not beside each other. The Youngs supported the Gallardos’ position and maintained that they were buyers in good faith.

The RTC ruled in favor of the Abays which ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that the documents presented by the Abays showed that they purchased Lot No. 6036-B and not Lot No. 7, which they claimed to own and possess.

The SC disagreed and reiterated its pronouncements in previous cases upholding the validity of the sale and allowing the correction of a contract to reflect the parties’ true agreement in instances where the deed of sale failed to accurately describe the land intended by the parties.

The SC stressed that a person buys property based on what they see on the ground, such as its boundaries, landmarks, and improvements, and not by its technical lot number. Ordinary buyers cannot be expected to identify property based only on survey descriptions or legal documents.

Under the 𝘊𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦, a written document may be corrected when, because of a mistake, it does not express the parties’ actual agreement.

The SC explained that a contract may be reformed or corrected if: (1) the parties agreed on the transaction; (2) the written document does not express their true agreement; and (3) the error was caused by a mistake, fraud, accident, or unfair conduct.

In this case, all these requirements were present.

Thus, the Court declared deemed reformed the Deeds of Sale and Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale by changing the designation of the property sold from “Lot No. 6036-B” to “Lot 7” and the Abays as absolute owners of such property.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169523

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/266298-spouses-genera-and-felipe-abay-sr-et-al-vs-spouses-jacinto-s-young-et-al/

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

28/07/2026

Nagpasya ang na nananatiling may bisa ang bentahan ng lupa na magkaibang numero ng lote ang nakasaad sa kasulatan ng bentahan o deed of sale kumpara sa tunay na nabenta, basta’t malinaw na maipapakita ang totoong pinagkasunduan ng mga partido. Dahil dito, maaaring itama ang kasulatan para tumugma sa aktuwal na napagkasunduan ng magkabilang panig.

Sa Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, pinagtibay ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang bentahan ng isang 491 metro kuwadradong lupain sa Lungsod ng Cebu sa pagitan ng mga mamimiling sina Genara at Felipe Abay, Sr. (mga Abay) at ng mga nagbentang sina Crispin Caballes at mga tagapagmana ni Trinidad Caballes-Gallardo (mga Gallardo), sa kabila ng pagkakamali sa nakalagay na numero ng lote sa deed of sale.

Bahagi ang lupang ito ng ari-ariang naiwan ni Margarita Lopez na may siyam na anak, kabilang sina Crispin at Trinidad.

Binisita ng mga Abay ang lugar kasama si Crispin at si Tomas Gallardo, isa sa mga tagapagmana ni Trinidad, bago nila binili ang ari-arian. Sa kanilang pagbisita, ipinakita sa kanila ang mga hangganan ng lupa. Tumulong pa si Tomas sa mga Abay sa pagtatayo ng bakod sa paligid nito.

Tinirahan ng mga Abay ang ari-arian nang humigit-kumulang 20 taon. Naputol lang ang kanilang paninirahan nang pumasok dito ang mga manggagawa ng mag-asawang Jacinto at Chiok Ngo Lim Young (mga Young), sinara ang bakod, at nagtayo ng sarili nilang mga poste.

Nalaman ng mga Abay na isang titulo para sa ari-arian ang naisyu sa pangalan ng mga Young. Dahil dito, naghain sila ng reklamo sa Regional Trial Court (RTC) para maipakansela ang nasabing titulo.

Kinuwestiyon ito ng mga Gallardo at ikinatuwirang ang mga dokumentong iprinisenta ng mga Abay ay tumutukoy sa ibang lote, ang Lot No. 6036-B, at hindi sa loteng kanilang tinitirhan na Lot No. 7. Bagama’t parehong matatagpuan sa iisang lugar ang dalawang lote, hiwalay na ari-arian ang mga ito at hindi magkatabi. Sinuportahan ng mga Young ang panig ng mga Gallardo at pinanindigang sila ay mga mamimili na may mabuting intensyon.

Nagdesisyon ang RTC pabor sa mga Abay, pero binaliktad ang desisyong ng Court of Appeals (CA). Ayon sa CA, ang mga dokumentong iprinisenta ng mga Abay ay nagpapakitang Lot No. 6036-B ang kanilang nabili at hindi ang Lot No. 7 na inangkin at pinaghahawakan nila.

Hindi sumang-ayon ang Korte Suprema at iginiit nito ang ang mga naging desisyon nito sa mga naunang kaso na nagpapatibay ng bilihan. Pinahihintulutan nito ang pagtatama ng kasulatan para maipakita ang tunay na kasunduan ng mga panig sa mga pagkakataong nabigo ang deed of sale na tumpak na mailarawan ang lupang nilayon ng magkabilang panig.

Sa ilalim ng Civil Code, maaaring itama ang isang kasulatan nang kapag dahil sa isang pagkakamali hindi nito naipapakita ang tunay na pinagkasunduan ng mga panig.

Paliwanag ng Korte Suprema, ang isang kontrata ay maaaring baguhin o itama kung: (1) nagkasundo ang mga panig sa transaksyon; (2) hindi naipapahayag ng kasulatan ang kanilang tunay na kasunduan; at (3) ang kamalian ay sanhi ng pagkakamali o mistake, panlilinlang o fraud, aksidente, o unfair conduct.

Sa kasong ito, napatunayang umiiral ang lahat ng mga kondisyong ito.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=169523

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164169

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.


Address

2nd Floor FC Quad Bldg, S. B. Cabahug Street, Ibabao-Estancia
Mandaue City
6014

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm
Saturday 9am - 5pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when L V M H J D Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share