La Corte v. Bva 286 Scra 24
La Corte v. Bva 286 Scra 24
La Corte v. Bva 286 Scra 24
*
G.R. No. 124574. February 2, 1998.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
25
REGALADO, J.:
_______________
1 CA-G.R. CV No. 36650, Former Eighth Division, with Justice Bernardo LL.
Salas as ponente, and Justices Jaime M. Lantin and Alicia Austria-Martinez
concurring.
26
_______________
2 The complaint was led by the Citizens Legal Assistance Ofce and petitioners
are now represented in this Court by the Public Attorneys Ofce, both of the
Department of Justice.
27
In a decision dated November 29, 1991, the trial court ordered (a)
the rescission of the deed of reconveyance executed
_______________
28
_______________
29
A G R E E M E N T
17 October 1983
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that I, JOSE I. ICACA, of legal age, married, a
resident of Ramos Street, Lezo, Aklan, after an agreement has
been made to the heirs of Maria Lacorte, represented by her son
Simon Lacorte, also of legal age, likewise a resident of Lezo,
Aklan, do hereby agreed the following conditions:
That with the consent of the said Simon Lacorte and his co-
heirs, I have been authorized directly to purchase their
foreclosed land which was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of
Malinao, Aklan;
That we further agreed that within the period of one year
beginning this date October 17, 1983, I am giving them the
chance and privilege to recover and repurchase the said land in
the purchase (illegible) of TWENTY ONE THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED PESOS
_______________
30
Although the period granted to the heirs of Maria Lacorte to buy back the
land from me is due to expire tomorrow in accordance with the agreement
dated October 17, 1983, I, Jose I. Icaca, do
_______________
6 Exhibit B; Folder of Exhibits, 2. The total amount in words and gures should properly be
P33,590.00.
7 Article 1602, Civil Code.
8 TSN, February 5, 1991, 5.
31
hereby give extra period to recover and repurchase the property from me
9
until March 1987.
_______________
32
33
12
necessary to pay the balance of the purchase price. If what
she alleges is true, then it is perplexing why she would still
ask for money from petitioners and thereby involve them in
the contract with Icaca although that was supposed to be for
respondent spouses exclusively.
3. Adela Lacorte likewise admitted that her mother-in-law and
two of herein petitioners remain and continue to be in
possession of the property even after the sale thereof to
Icaca. The only plausible and explicative reason for this is
that petitioners were merely enforcing the rights vested in
them under those aforementioned agreements with Icaca.
4. Also, by her own admission, Adela Lacorte knew that
petitioners were very interested in redeeming the property
from Icaca. On the witness stand, she stated that when she
met with Icaca to negotiate for the repurchase of the
property, she was accompanied by both her husband and
13
petitioner Rosario Lacorte. It will be recalled that Rosario
Lacorte is one of the petitioners who has been continuously
occupying the subject land from the time it was still owned
by Maria Lacorte up to the present. Logically, it is Rosario
Lacorte who, among the heirs, is most interested in
regaining ownership of the property. Thus, Adela Lacorte
cannot make it appear that Rosarios presence in that
meeting was inconsequential; on the contrary, Adelas close
contact with petitioners during the negotiations is clear
proof that she was privy to the agreements between
petitioners and Icaca.
5. Petitioner Simon Lacorte testied that they were the ones
who negotiated with the bank for the reduction of the
redemption price from P45,000.00 to P21,000.00. After the
bank had agreed to their proposal, Simon Lacorte
immediately consulted with Icaca, to whom the land had
also been mortgaged for P12,500.00, on the possibility of
the latter paying the redemption price while petitioners still
did not have the money to buy back their property. Icaca
acceded and,
_______________
34
14
consequently, an agreement was executed between the parties.
Simon Lacorte further explained that his brothers and sisters
agreed to make arrangements with the bank, except respondent
15
Peregrino who merely said that it was up to them. Apparently,
respondent spouses were inceptually not interested in redeeming the
16
property and refused to cooperate with petitioners for that
17
purpose. They took interest and cooperated only after the
redemption price was considerably reduced by the bank through the
joint efforts of herein petitioners. These facts sufciently prove that
respondent spouses were fully aware of the dealings and
arrangements made by petitioners with the bank and Icaca for the
redemption of the property, otherwise they could not have known
about the particulars thereof.
All told, we are not persuaded by respondent spouses pretension
that they were oblivious of the existing agreements between
petitioners and Icaca when they paid for the land in question.
Besides, it would be downright unfair for petitioners not to gain
anything after all their efforts and the trouble that they had gone
through precisely to preserve and retain ownership of the property
within the family.
One more thing. The case records irresistibly reveal that the real
intention of Icaca was to reconvey the land to all the heirs of Maria
Lacorte. This fact is supported by both the documentary evidence on
record and the uncontroverted testimony of Icaca himself, to wit:
_______________
35
_______________
36
A: That Adela Lacorte told me your Honor that she will tell them
that they had already acquired the property.
Q: You did not nd it strange after reading this document that you
are selling it, the property to Adela and Peregrino Lacorte,
instead of Peregrino Lacorte and his brothers and sisters who are
the children of his mother?
A: I did not understand that that document is only for the spouses
because I thought that its for the brothers and sisters as per
agreed (sic) that whoever is capable of buying back the property,
20
would buy it for everybody.
_______________
37
22
pally considered. In light of the foregoing disquisition, the
inevitable conclusion is that it was really the intention of the parties
that the subject parcel of land shall be reconveyed to all the heirs of
Maria Lacorte, hence the payment made by Adela Lacorte should be
deemed to inure to the benet of all the aforementioned heirs.
Consequently, herein petitioners necessarily stand to be prejudiced
by the Deed of Reconveyance executed solely in favor of Adela
Lacorte since they should have been included as parties thereto.
Article 1359 of the Civil Code provides that when, there having
been a meeting of the minds 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 or
accident, one of the parties may ask for the reformation of the
instrument to the end that such true intention may be expressed. If
such mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a
meeting of the minds of the parties, the proper remedy is not
reformation of the instrument but annulment of the contract.
There is no doubt that petitioners are entitled to bring an action to
annul the contract because they stand to be prejudiced by the
enforcement of the Deed of Reconveyance. As to whether or not
they also have the right to ask for reformation of the instrument, we
hold in the afrmative. This is because petitioners should really have
been made parties to the Deed of Reconveyance were it not for the
fact that Adela Lacorte had fraudulently excluded their names
therefrom. From the start of the negotiations with the bank and, later,
with Jose Icaca, petitioners have actively participated. They
remained in possession of the land, gathered fruits therefrom, and
never for a moment relinquished their rights thereover.
Adela Lacorte explicitly recognized such right when she sought
the help of petitioners in raising money to pay for the land. It was
clear that, from the very start, petitioners were already recognized as
actual parties to the prospective recon-
_______________
38
_______________
23 Article 1362. If one party was mistaken and the other acted fraudulently or
inequitably to disclose their real agreement, said instrument may be reformed.
39
o0o
40