SECOND DIVISION[G.R. No. 133643. June 6, 2002]RITA SARMING, RUFINOSARMING, MANUEL SARMING, LEONORAVDA. DE LO, ERLINDA DARMING, NI!ANDRASARMING,MANSUETASARMING, ARTURO!ORSAME, FEL!ORSAME,FEDERI!O !ORSAME, ISA"ELITA !ORSAME, NORMA!ORSAME, !ESAR !ORSAME, RUD !ORSAME, RO"ERTA!ORSAME, ARTEMIO !ORSAME, EL#IDIO !ORSAME,ENRI$UITA !ORSAME, %n& GUADALU#E !ORSAMETAN,petitioners, vs. !RESEN!IO D, LUDIVINA D'!(AN,TRINIDADFLORES, LUISA FLORES, SATURNINA ORGANISTA,REMEDIOS ORGANISTA, OFELIA ORGANISTA, LDIAORGANISTA, )OSIMO ORGANISTA, DOMISIANO FLORES,FLORITAFLORES, EDUARDO FLORES, "ENIGNA FLORES,ANGELINA FLORES, MAR!IAL FLORES, %n& MARIOFLORES, respondents.D E ! I S I O NQUISUMBING, J.*Thispetitionforreviewassailsthedecision[1] datedSeptember!" 1##$oftheCo%rt of&ppeals in C&'()*) CV No) !#+,1" which affirmed the decision[] of the *e-ional Trial Co%rt".ranch +1 in Ne-ros Oriental" D%ma-%ete Cit/ and the resol%tion[!] dated &pril 1" 1##0 den/in-petitioners motion for reconsideration)The facts as c%lled from records are as follows12etitioners are the s%ccessors'in'interest of ori-inal defendant Silveria 3lores" whilerespondents Cresencio D/ and 4%divina D/'Chan are the s%ccessors'in'interest of the ori-inalplaintiff &le5andra Delfino" the b%/er of one of the lots s%b5ect of this case)The/ were 5oined inthis petition b/ the s%ccessors'in'interest of Isabel" 6%an" 7ilario" *%perto" Tomasa" and 4%isaand Trinidad themselves" all s%rnamed 3lores" who were also the ori-inal plaintiffs in the lowerco%rt) The/ are the descendants of Venancio[+] and 6ose[8]" the brothers of the ori-inal defendantSilveria 3lores)In their complaint for reformation of instr%ment a-ainst Silveria 3lores" the ori-inalplaintiffs alle-ed that the/" with the e9ception of &le5andra Delfino" are the heirs of Valentina:nto3lores" whoowned" amon-others" 4ot 8$!+" coveredb/OCT+#10'&;and4ot +1 >7EN IT 3&I4ED TOO*DE*T7EDISCISS&4O3CIVI4C&SENO) !+8$3O*4&CFO3C&:SEO3&CTION)) T7E CO:*T O3 &22E&4S &ND T7E T*I&4 CO:*T COCCITTED & *EVE*SI.4EE**O* IN 4&> &ND 6:*IS2*:DENCE >7EN IT 3&I4ED TO *:4E T7&T" .&SEDONT7E:NDIS2:TEDEVIDENCEON*ECO*D&NDT7ESETT4ECENTO3EST&TE&NDS&4EITSE43" T7E24&INTI33S 7&VENOC&:SEO3 &CTION&(&INSTSI4VE*I&34O*ES .EC&:SE S7E DIDNOTSE447E*4&NDTO&4E6&ND*&DE43INO) 7ENCESI4VE*I&34O*ES C&NNOT.E.O:NDNO*2*E6:DICED .E T7E CONT*&CT O3 S&4E ENTE*ED .E &4E6&ND*& DE43INO&ND 7E* CO'24&INTI33S @CAPITOL INSURANCE & SURETY CO INC. V. CENTRALAZUCARERA DEL DAVAO" 1 SC*& #0; OZAETA V. CA" 0 SC*& !8,A)!) T7E CO:*T O3 &22E&4S &ND T7E T*I&4 CO:*T COCCITTED & *EVE*SI.4EE**O* >7EN IT 3&I4ED TO 2*ONO:NCE T7&T SI4VE*I& 34O*ES >7O IS NOT& 2&*TE TO T7E CONT*&CT O3 S&4E INVO4VIN( 4OT NO) 8$!+ COVE*ED .EOCT NO) +#10'& C&NNOT .E 4E(&44E COC2E44ED .E &4E6&ND*& DE43INOT7*: &N &CTION 3O* *E3O*C&TION O3 CONT*&CT TO EGEC:TE &CONVEE&NCE O3 S&4E INVO4VIN( 4OT NO) +1EE* O3 &4E6&ND*&DE43INO)7EN IT *:4ED T7&T T7E (*&NDC7I4D*EN O3 6OSE 34O*ES &*EO>NE*S &ND CO:4D SE44 T7E ONE'7&43 @1DA 2O*TION O3 4OT NO) +1orth stressin-" the e9istence of a ca%se of action is not determined b/ ones involvement ina contract) 2articipation in a contract is not an element to determine the e9istence of a ca%se ofaction) Ther%leisthat onl/thealle-ationsinthecomplaint ma/properl/beconsideredinascertainin- the e9istence of a ca%se of action) 4ac= of ca%se of action m%st appear on the face ofthe complaint and its e9istence ma/ be determined onl/ b/ the alle-ations of thecomplaint) Considerationof other facts is proscribedandan/attempt toprove e9traneo%scirc%mstances is not allowed.[1+]The test of s%fficienc/ of the facts fo%nd in a complaint as constit%tin- a ca%se of action iswhether or not" admittin- the facts alle-ed" the co%rt can render a valid 5%d-ment %pon the sameinaccordancewiththepra/er inthecomplaint)[18] &ne9aminationof thecomplaint[1hen" there havin- been a meetin- of the minds of the parties to a contract"their tr%e intention is not e9pressed in the instr%ment p%rportin- to embod/ the a-reement b/ reason of mista=e" fra%d" ineB%itable cond%ct or accident" one of the parties ma/ as= for the reformation of the instr%ment to the end that s%ch tr%e intention ma/ be e9pressed)If mista=e" fra%d" ineB%itable cond%ct" or accident has prevented a meetin- of the minds of the parties" the proper remed/ is not reformation of the instr%ment b%t ann%lment of the contract)&n action for reformation of instr%ment %nder this provision of law ma/ prosper onl/ %ponthe conc%rrence of the followin- reB%isites1 @1A there m%st have been a meetin- of the minds ofthe parties to the contact; @A the instr%ment does not e9press the tr%e intention of the parties; and@!A the fail%re of the instr%ment to e9press the tr%e intention of the parties is d%e to mista=e"fra%d" ineB%itable cond%ct or accident)[10]&ll of these reB%isites" in o%r view" are present in this case)There was a meetin- of theminds between the parties to the contract b%t the deed did not e9press the tr%e intention of theparties d%e to mista=e in the desi-nation of the lot s%b5ect of the deed) There is no disp%te as tothe intention of the parties to sell the land to &le5andra Delfino b%t there was a mista=e as to thedesi-nation of the lot intended to be sold as stated in the Settlement of Estate and Sale)>hileintentionsinvolveastateofmindwhichma/sometimesbediffic%lt todecipher"s%bseB%ent and contemporaneo%s acts of the parties as well as the evidentiar/ facts as provedand admitted can be reflective of ones intention) The totalit/ of the evidence clearl/ indicatesthat what was intended to be sold to &le5andra Delfino was 4ot +1e partic%larl/ notethat one of the stip%lated facts d%rin- the pre'trial is that one'half of 4ot +1ect lot tothePhili$$ine/an2of Co++erce;P/Co+udiciall3 foreclosed $ro$ert3 fro+P/Co+,ecause Tua9on was financiall3inca$a,le& The totalconsideration of the sale was One 5illion Three Hundred Dight3Thousand ;P!*08'*'''&''< Pesos& He ;:i+< $urchased a +anagers chec2 fro+ #sian/an2 for One 5illion ;P!*'''*'''&''< Pesos and tendered the chec2 to P/Co+ as therede+$tion$rice& On7ul3!(* !.8)* ThreeHundredDight3Thousand;P08'*'''&''ect+ent casedoc2etedasCivil CaseNo& !.((8,efore/ranch5'of the5unici$al Trial Court in1aloo2an Cit3 when Tua9on de$rived hi+ for si@ ;(< long 3ears of his rightful ownershi$and $ossession over the su,>ect lot&On Dece+,er -* !..!* the trial court of origin decided for the $rivate res$ondent*dis$osing thus6>7E*E3O*E" 5%d-ment is hereb/ rendered dismissin- the complaint and declarin- the Deed of &bsol%te Sale e9ec%ted b/ the parties on 6%l/ 18" 1#0$ as an absol%te and %nconditional conve/ance b/ the plaintiff in favor of the defendant of the s%b5ect propert/; li=ewise" defendants co%nterclaim is hereb/ dismissed)SO O*DE*ED)[1]Dissatisfiedtherewith* onDece+,er -)* !..!* the$artiesfiledtheir res$ective5otions for Reconsideration&On Nove+,er !(*!..-* the lower court reconsidered its Decision dated Dece+,er-* !..!* and resolved instead6>7E*E3O*E" the Decision rendered on December " 1##1 is accordin-l/ reconsidered" as follows1@1A The Deed of &bsol%te Sale" mar=ed as E9hibit & for the plaintiff and E9hibit 1 for the defendant" is hereb/ declared an eB%itable mort-a-e and is accordin-l/ reformed as s%ch;@A The plaintiff is hereb/ directed to pa/ the One Cillion @21",,,",,,),,A 2esos accommodation to the defendant; and@!A The Transfer Certificate of Title No) 187E*E3O*E" the appealed Order" dated November 17E*E3O*E" inviewof all thefore-oin-" it is respectf%ll/pra/edof this7onorableOfficethat after d%enoticeandhearin-" a5%d-ment be please rendered1 1) De45%.2n6 17%1 17e 2n31.u0en13 e8e4u1e& 9: 17e 4o0;5%2n%n1FRA"ELLE%n& .e3;on&en1 #(ILAM1o 7%eholdthat bein-anactionfor reformationof instr%ments" petitionerscomplaint necessaril/falls %nder the 5%risdictionof the *e-ional Trial Co%rtp%rs%ant to Section 1" *%le 21717eRu5e3o/!on4252%12on%n&A.921.%12on o/ 17e In1e.n%12on%5 !7%09e. o/ !o00e.4e.[1+] 2etitioner referredthe disp%te to the 2D*CI b%t respondents ref%sed to s%bmit to its 5%risdiction)It bearsstressin-that s%charbitrationa-reement isthelawbetweentheparties) The/ are" therefore" e9pected to abide b/ it in -ood faith)[18]This Co%rt has previo%sl/heldthat arbitrationis oneof thealternativemethodsofdisp%teresol%tionthatisnowri-htf%ll/va%ntedasthewaveofthef%t%reininternational relations" andisreco-ni?edworldwide) Tobr%shasideacontract%al a-reement callin- for arbitration in case of disa-reement between theparties wo%ld therefore be a step bac=ward)[1