You are on page 1of 4

RAFAEL S. ORTAEZ, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, OSCAR INOCENTES, AND ASUNCION LLANES INOCENTES,respondents.

RESOLUTION
FRANCISCO, J.:

On September 30, 1982, private respondents sold to petitioner two (2) parcels of registered land in Q e!on "it# for a consideration of $3%,000&00 and$20,000&00, respectivel#& '(e first deed of absol te sale covering 'ransfer "ertificate of 'itle ('"') )o& 2%8*28 provides in part+ "That for and in consideration of the sum of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND (P35,000.00) PESOS, receipt of which in full is hereby acknowledged, we have sold, transferred and conveyed, as we hereby sell, transfer and convey , that subdivided portion of the property covered by TCT No. 258628 known as Lot No. 684-G-1-B-2 in favor of RAFAEL S. ORTANEZ, of legal age, Filipino. whose marriage is under a regime of complete separation of property, and a resident of 942 Aurora Blvd., Quezon City, his heirs or assigns."
[1]

w(ile t(e second deed of absol te sale covering '"' )o& 2,32-3 provides+ "That for and in consideration of the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS receipt of which in full is hereby acknowledged, we have sold, transferred and conveyed, as we hereby sell, transfer and convey , that consolidated-subdivided portion of the property covered by TCT No. 243273 known as Lot No. 5 in favor of RAFAEL S. ORTANEZ, of legal age, Filipino, whose marriage is under a regime of complete separation of property, and a resident of 942 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City his heirs or assigns.
[2]

$rivate respondents received t(e pa#ments for t(e above.mentioned lots, b t failed to deliver t(e titles to petitioner& On /pril 9, 1990 t(e latter demanded from t(e former t(e deliver# of said titles& $rivate respondents, (owever, ref sed on t(e gro nd t(at t(e title of t(e first lot is in t(e possession of anot(er person, and petitioner2s ac3 isition of t(e title of t(e ot(er lot is s b4ect to certain conditions&
031 0,1

Offs(oot, petitioner s ed private respondents for specific performance before t(e 5'"& 6n t(eir answer wit( co nterclaim private

respondents merel# alleged t(e e7istence of t(e following oral conditions w(ic( were never reflected in t(e deeds of sale+
0%1 0*1

"3.3.2 Title to the other property (TCT No. 243273) remains with the defendants (private respondents) until plaintiff (petitioner) shows proof that all the following requirements have been met: (i) Plaintiff will cause the segregation of his right of way amounting to 398 sq. m.; (ii) Plaintiff will submit to the defendants the approved plan for the segregation; (iii) Plaintiff will put up a strong wall between his property and that of defendants' lot to segregate his right of way; (iv) Plaintiff will pay the capital gains tax and all other expenses that may be incurred by reason of sale. x x x." 8 ring trial, private respondent Oscar 6nocentes, a former 4 dge, orall# testified t(at t(e sale was s b4ect to t(e above conditions, alt(o g( s c( conditions were not incorporated in t(e deeds of sale& 8espite petitioner2s timel# ob4ections on t(e gro nd t(at t(e introd ction of said oral conditions was barred b# t(e parol evidence r le, t(e lower co rt nonet(eless, admitted t(em and event all# dismissed t(e complaint as well as t(e co nterclaim& On appeal, t(e "o rt of /ppeals ("/) affirmed t(e co rt a quo& 9ence, t(is petition&
0-1

:e are tas;ed to resolve t(e iss e on t(e admissibilit# of parol evidence to establis( t(e alleged oral conditions.precedent to a contract of sale, w(en t(e deeds of sale are silent on s c( conditions& '(e parol evidence (erein introd ced is inadmissible& <irst, private respondents2 oral testimon# on t(e alleged conditions, coming from a part# w(o (as an interest in t(e o tcome of t(e case, depending e7cl sivel# on ( man memor#, is not as reliable as written or doc mentar# evidence& Spo;en words co ld be notorio sl# nreliable nli;e a written contract w(ic( spea;s of a niform lang age& '( s, nder t(e general r le in Section 9 of 5 le 130 of t(e 5 les of "o rt, w(en t(e terms of an agreement were red ced to writing, as in t(is case, it is deemed to contain all t(e terms agreed pon and no evidence of s c( terms can be admitted ot(er t(an t(e contents t(ereof&
081 091 0101

"onsidering t(at t(e written deeds of sale were t(e onl# repositor# of t(e tr t(, w(atever is not fo nd in said instr ments m st (ave been waived and abandoned b# t(e parties& =7amining t(e deeds of sale, we cannot even ma;e an inference t(at t(e sale was s b4ect to an# condition& /s a contract, it is t(e law between t(e parties&
0111 0121 0131

Secondl#, to b ttress t(eir arg ment, private respondents rel# on t(e case of >and Settlement 8evelopment, "o& vs& ?arcia $lantation w(ere t(e "o rt r led t(at a condition precedent to a contract ma# be establis(ed b# parol evidence& 9owever, t(e material facts of t(at case are different from t(is case& 6n t(e former, t(e contract so g(t to be enforced e7pressl# stated t(at it is s b4ect to an agreement containing t(e conditions.precedent w(ic( were proven t(ro g( parol evidence& :(ereas, t(e deeds of sale in t(is case, made no reference to an# pre. conditions or ot(er agreement& 6n fact, t(e sale is denominated as absol te in its own terms&
01,1 01%1

'(ird, t(e parol evidence (erein so g(t to be introd ced wo ld var#, contradict or defeat t(e operation of a valid instr ment, (ence, contrar# to t(e r le t(at+
01*1

The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to x x x the terms of a written instrument by testimony purporting to show that, at or before the signing of the document, other or different terms were orally agreed upon by the parties.
[17]

/lt(o g( parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract, @it cannot serve t(e p rpose of incorporating into t(e contract additional contemporaneo s conditions w(ic( are not mentioned at all in t(e writing nless t(ere (as been fra d or mista;e&@ )o s c( fra d or mista;e e7ists in t(is case&
0181

<o rt(, we disagree wit( private respondents2 arg ment t(at t(eir parol evidence is admissible nder t(e e7ceptions provided b# t(e 5 les, specificall#, t(e alleged fail re of t(e agreement to e7press t(e tr e intent of t(e parties& S c( e7ception obtains onl# in t(e following instance+ "[W]here the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the contractual intention of the parties cannot be understood from a mere reading of the instrument. In such a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of the contract, of the relations of the parties to each other, and of the facts and circumstances surrounding them when they entered into the contract may be received to enable the court to make a proper interpretation of the

instrument."

[19]

6n t(is case, t(e deeds of sale are clear, wit(o t an# ambig it#, mista;e or imperfection, m c( less obsc rit# or do bt in t(e terms t(ereof& <ift(, we are not pers aded b# private respondentsA contention t(at t(e# @p t in iss e b# t(e pleadings@ t(e fail re of t(e written agreement to e7press t(e tr e intent of t(e parties& 5ecord s(ows t(at private respondents did not expressly plead t(at t(e deeds of sale were incomplete or t(at it did not reflect t(e intention of t(e b #er (petitioner) and t(e seller (private respondents)& S c( iss e m st be @s3 arel# presented&@ $rivate respondents merel# alleged t(at t(e sale was s b4ect to fo r (,) conditions w(ic( t(e# tried to prove d ring trial b# parol evidence& Obvio sl#, t(is cannot be done, beca se t(e# did not plead an# of t(e e7ceptions mentioned in t(e parol evidence r le& '(eir case is covered b# t(e general r le t(at t(e contents of t(e writing are t(e onl# repositor# of t(e terms of t(e agreement& "onsidering t(at private respondent Oscar 6nocentes is a law#er (and former 4 dge) (e was @s pposed to be steeped in legal ;nowledge and practices@ and was @e7pected to ;now t(e conse3 ences@ of (is signing a deed of absol te sale& 9ad (e given an iota2s attention to scr tini!e t(e deeds, (e wo ld (ave incorporated important stip lations t(at t(e transfer of title to said lots were conditional&
0201 0211 0221 0231 02,1 02%1 02*1

One last t(ing, ass ming arguendo t(at t(e parol evidence is admissible, it s(o ld nonet(eless be disbelieved as no ot(er evidence appears from t(e record to s stain t(e e7istence of t(e alleged conditions& )ot even t(e ot(er seller, /s ncion 6nocentes, was presented to testif# on s c( conditions& ACCORDINGLY, t(e appealed decision is 5=B=5S=8 and t(e records of t(is case 5=C/)8=8 to t(e trial co rt for proper disposition in accordance wit( t(is r ling& SO ORDERED.

You might also like