ASUNCION ATILANO, CRISTINA ATILANO, ROSARIO ATILANO, assisted by their

respective husbands HILARIO ROMANO, FELIPE BERNARDO and MAXIMO

LACANDALO, ISABEL ATILANO and GREGORIO ATILANO VS LADISLAO
ATILANO AND GRGORIO M. ATILANO
G.R. NO. L-22487, 21 May 1969, EN BANC (Makalintal, J.)

FACTS:

Eulogio Atilano I purchased a parcel of land which he dived into 5 parts. He then sold to
his brother Eulogio Atilano II 1/5 of the lot identified as 535-E. He sold the other portions 535-
B, 535-C and 535-D to other persons, retaining only 535-A. When Eulogio Atilano I died, his lot
passed to Ladislao Atilano.

Eulogio Atilano II became a co-owner of the lot 535-E with his children upon his wifes
death. Desiring to put an end to the co-ownership, they had the land resurveyed so that it could
properly be subdivided. It was then discovered that what they were occupying was lot 535-A and
not 535-E, as referred to in the deed. Since 535-E was in Ladislaos possession, they offered to
exchange the lots. However, the latter refused alleging that the reference to lot 535-E in the deed
of sale was an involuntary error and that the intention of the parties was to convey the lots
correctly identified as lot 535-A. Proof thereof was Eulogio Is occupation of 535-E and
increasing the area of the same by purchasing a portion of the adjoining lot. In addition, Eulogio
II also occupied the 535-A, establishing his residence therein.

The trial court rendered decided in favor of the plaintiffs.

ISSUE: Whether or not the lot referred to in the Deed of Sale should be followed.

HELD:

No. When one sells or buys real property, one sells or buys the property as he sees it, in
its actual setting and by its physical metes and bonds, and not by the mere lot number assigned to
it in the certificate of title. The brothers continued in possession of the respective portions the
rest of their lives, obviously ignorant of the initial mistake in the designation of the lot subject of
the 1920 until 1959, when the mistake was discovered for the first time.

The real issue here is not adverse possession but the real intention of the parties to that
sale. The designation was a simple mistake in the drafting of the document. It did not vitiate the
consent of the parties, or affect the validity and binding effect of the contract between them.

WHEREFORE, judgment appealed from is reversed.