Evidence - Parol Evidence

7/23/2019 Evidence - Parol Evidence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evidence-parol-evidence 1/28

EVIDENCE – PAROL EVIDENCE

[G.R. No. 107372. January 23, 1997]

RAFAEL S. ORTAEZ, petitioner, vs. THE CORT OF A!!EALS,

OSCAR "NOCENTES, AN# ASNC"ON LLANES

"NOCENTES, respondents.

R E S O L T " O N

FRANC"SCO, J .$

On September 30, 1982, private respondents sold to petitioner two (2)

parcels of registered land in Qe!on "it# for a consideration of $3%,000&00

and $20,000&00, respectivel#& 'e first deed of absolte 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

(!#$$$%$$& ESOS# recei't of hich in fu)) is here*+ ac,no)ed-ed# we have sold,

transferred and conveyed, as we hereby sell, transfer and convey# that su*di.ided

'ortion of the 'ro'ert+ co.ered *+ T/T No% 01201 ,non as 3ot No% 21456575850

in fa.or of RAFAE3 S% ORTANE9# of )e-a) a-e# Fi)i'ino% hose marria-e is under a

re-ime of com')ete se'aration of 'ro'ert+# and a resident of :40 Aurora 8).d%#

;ue<on /it+# his heirs or assi-ns%"=7>

wile te second deed of absolte sale covering '"' o& 232-3 provides+

"That for and in consideration of the sum of T?ENTY THOUSAND (0$#$$$%$$&

ESOS recei't of hich in fu)) is here*+ ac,no)ed-ed# we have sold, transferred

and conveyed, as we hereby sell, transfer and convey# that conso)idated5su*di.ided

'ortion of the 'ro'ert+ co.ered *+ T/T No% 04!0@! ,non as 3ot No% in fa.or of

RAFAE3 S% ORTANE9# of )e-a) a-e# Fi)i'ino# hose marria-e is under a re-ime of

com')ete se'aration of 'ro'ert+# and a resident of :40 Aurora 8).d%# /u*ao# ;ue<on

/it+ his heirs or assi-ns%=0>

$rivate respondents received te pa#ments for te above.mentioned lots,

bt failed to deliver te titles to petitioner& On /pril 9, 1990 te latter

demanded from te former te deliver# of said titles& 3 $rivate respondents,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jan1997/107372.htm#_edn1








owever, refsed on te grond tat te title of te first lot is in te possession

of anoter person, and petitioners acisition of te title of te oter lot is

sb4ect to certain conditions&

Offsoot, petitioner sed private respondents for specific performancebefore te 5'"& 6n teir answer wit conterclaim private respondents merel#

alleged te e7istence of te following oral conditions % wic were never

reflected in te deeds of sale+*

"!%!%0 Tit)e to the other 'ro'ert+ (T/T No% 04!0@!& remains ith the defendants

('ri.ate res'ondents& unti) ')aintiff ('etitioner& shos 'roof that a)) the fo))oin-

reuirements ha.e *een metB

(i& )aintiff i)) cause the se-re-ation of his ri-ht of a+ amountin- to !:1 s% m%C

(ii& )aintiff i)) su*mit to the defendants the a''ro.ed ')an for the se-re-ationC

(iii& )aintiff i)) 'ut u' a stron- a)) *eteen his 'ro'ert+ and that of defendants )ot

to se-re-ate his ri-ht of a+C

(i.& )aintiff i)) 'a+ the ca'ita) -ains ta and a)) other e'enses that ma+ *e incurred

*+ reason of sa)e% %"

ring trial, private respondent Oscar 6nocentes, a former 4dge, orall#

testified tat te sale was sb4ect to te above conditions, - altog sc

conditions were not incorporated in te deeds of sale& espite petitioners

timel# ob4ections on te grond tat te introdction of said oral conditions

was barred b# te parol evidence rle, te lower cort noneteless, admitted

tem and eventall# dismissed te complaint as well as te conterclaim& On

appeal, te "ort of /ppeals ("/) affirmed te cort a quo& ence, tis

petition&

:e are tas;ed to resolve te isse on te admissibilit# of parol evidence to

establis te alleged oral conditions.precedent to a contract of sale, wen te

deeds of sale are silent on sc conditions&

'e parol evidence erein introdced is inadmissible& <irst, private

respondents oral testimon# on te alleged conditions, coming from a part#











wo as an interest in te otcome of te case, depending e7clsivel# on

man memor#, is not as reliable as written or docmentar# evidence&8 Spo;en words cold be notoriosl# nreliable nli;e a written contract wic

spea;s of a niform langage&9 's, nder te general rle in Section 9 of

5le 13010

of te 5les of "ort, wen te terms of an agreement wereredced to writing, as in tis case, it is deemed to contain all te terms agreed

pon and no evidence of sc terms can be admitted oter tan te contents

tereof& 11 "onsidering tat te written deeds of sale were te onl# repositor# of

te trt, watever is not fond in said instrments mst ave been waived

and abandoned b# te parties& 12 =7amining te deeds of sale, we cannot even

ma;e an inference tat te sale was sb4ect to an# condition& /s a contract, it

is te law between te parties&13

Secondl#, to bttress teir argment, private respondents rel# on te caseof >and Settlement evelopment, "o& vs& ?arcia $lantation1 were te "ort

rled tat a condition precedent to a contract ma# be establised b# parol

evidence& owever, te material facts of tat case are different from tis

case& 6n te former, te contract sogt to be enforced1%e7pressl# stated tat it

is sb4ect to an agreement containing te conditions.precedent wic were

proven trog parol evidence& :ereas, te deeds of sale in tis case, made

no reference to an# pre. conditions or oter agreement& 6n fact, te sale is

denominated as absolte in its own terms&

'ird, te parol evidence erein sogt to be introdced wold var#,

contradict or defeat te operation of a valid instrment, 1* ence, contrar# to

te rle tat+

The 'aro) e.idence ru)e for*ids an+ addition to the terms of a ritten instrument

*+ testimon+ 'ur'ortin- to sho that# at or *efore the si-nin- of the document# other

or different terms ere ora))+ a-reed u'on *+ the 'arties%=7@>

/ltog parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract, @it

cannot serve te prpose of incorporating into te contract additional

contemporaneos conditions wic are not mentioned at all in te writing

nless tere as been frad or mista;e&@ 18 o sc frad or mista;e e7ists in

tis case&

























<ort, we disagree wit private respondents argment tat teir parol

evidence is admissible nder te e7ceptions provided b# te 5les,

specificall#, te alleged failre of te agreement to e7press te tre intent of

te parties& Sc e7ception obtains onl# in te following instance+

"=?>here the ritten contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the contractua)

intention of the 'arties cannot *e understood from a mere readin- of the instrument% In

such a case# etrinsic e.idence of the su*ect matter of the contract# of the re)ations of

the 'arties to each other# and of the facts and circumstances surroundin- them hen

the+ entered into the contract ma+ *e recei.ed to ena*)e the court to ma,e a 'ro'er

inter'retation of the instrument%" =7:>

6n tis case, te deeds of sale are clear, witot an# ambigit#, mista;e or

imperfection, mc less obscrit# or dobt in te terms tereof&

<ift, we are not persaded b# private respondents contention tat te#

@pt in isse b# te pleadings@ te failre of te written agreement to e7press

te tre intent of te parties& 5ecord sows 20 tat private respondents did

not expressly plead tat te deeds of sale were incomplete or tat it did not

reflect te intention21 of te b#er (petitioner) and te seller (private

respondents)& Sc isse mst be @sarel# presented&@22 $rivate respondents

merel# alleged tat te sale was sb4ect to for () conditions wic te# tried

to prove dring trial b# parol evidence&23 Obviosl#, tis cannot be done,becase te# did not plead an# of te e7ceptions mentioned in te parol

evidence rle&2 'eir case is covered b# te general rle tat te contents of

te writing are te onl# repositor# of te terms of te agreement& "onsidering

tat private respondent Oscar 6nocentes is a law#er (and former 4dge) e

was @spposed to be steeped in legal ;nowledge and practices@ and was

@e7pected to ;now te conseences@2% of is signing a deed of absolte sale&

ad e given an iotas attention to scrtini!e te deeds, e wold ave

incorporated important stiplations tat te transfer of title to said lots were

conditional&2*

One last ting, assming arguendo tat te parol evidence is admissible, it

sold noneteless be disbelieved as no oter evidence appears from te

record to sstain te e7istence of te alleged conditions& ot even te oter

seller, /sncion 6nocentes, was presented to testif# on sc conditions&



















ACCOR#"NGL%, te appealed decision is 5=A=5S= and te records of

tis case 5=B/= to te trial cort for proper disposition in accordance

wit tis rling&

SO OR#ERE#.

[G.R. No. 12&00&. January 29, 200']

LA!LA! FON#AT"ON, "NC. an( EL"AS ). TAN, petitioners,

vs. CORT OF A!!EALS *S++n-++n- #///on an( ALL"E#

AN"NG COR!.,respondents

# E C " S " O N

CALLEJO, SR., J .$

Cefore te "ort is te petition for review on certiorari filed b# te

>aplap <ondation, 6nc& and =lias Q& 'an see;ing to reverse and set aside

te ecision1 dated Dne 2*, 199* of te "ort of /ppeals ("/) in "/.?&5&

"A o& 3-1*2 ordering te petitioners, 4ointl# and solidaril#, to pa# te

respondent /llied Can;ing "orporation te amont of $93,%**&*1 pls

interests and oter carges& >i;ewise, sogt to be reversed and set aside is

te appellate corts 5esoltion dated /gst 19, 199* den#ing te petitioners

motion for reconsideration&

'e case stemmed from te following facts+

Sometime in 19--, petitioner =lias Q& 'an, ten $resident of te co.

petitioner >aplap <ondation, 6nc&, obtained for loans from te respondent

/llied Can;ing "orporation covered b# for promissor# notes in te amonts

of $100,000 eac& 'e details of te promissor# notes are as follows+

GN No% Date of GN aturit+ Date Amount as of 7G0!G@:

8D No% $4 No.% @# 7:@@ Fe*% # 7:@1 70!#!@@%@2

8D No% 207 No.% 01# 7:@@ ar% 01# 7:@1 70!#477%7$

8D No% @72 Dec% 70# 7:@@ A'r% 77# 7:@1 700#!00%07

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/126006.htm#_ftn1




8D No% 1!: an% # 7:@1 a+ # 7:@1 70$#4%4=0>

/s of Danar# 23, 19-9, te entire obligation amonted to $93,%**&*1

and despite demands made on tem b# te respondent Can;, te petitioners

failed to pa# te same& 'e respondent Can; was constrained to file wit te5egional 'rial "ort of "eb "it#, Cranc 1%, a complaint see;ing pa#ment b#

te petitioners, 4ointl# and solidaril#, of te sm of$93,%**&*1 representing

teir loan obligation, e7clsive of interests, penalt# carges, attorne#s fees

and costs&

6n its answer to te complaint, te petitioner <ondation denied incrring

indebtedness from te respondent Can; alleging tat te loans were obtained

b# petitioner 'an in is personal capacit#, for is own se and benefit and on

te strengt of te personal information e frnised te respondent Can;&'e petitioner <ondation maintained tat it never atori!ed petitioner 'an to

co.sign in is capacit# as its $resident an# promissor# note and tat te

respondent Can; fll# ;new tat te loans contracted were made in petitioner

'ans personal capacit# and for is own se and tat te petitioner <ondation

never benefited, directl# or indirectl#, terefrom& 'e petitioner <ondation

ten interposed a cross.claim against petitioner 'an alleging tat e, aving

e7ceeded is atorit#, sold be solel# liable for said loans, and a

conterclaim against te respondent Can; for damages and attorne#s fees&

<or is part, petitioner 'an admitted tat e contracted te loans from te

respondent Can; in is personal capacit#& 'e parties, owever, agreed tat

te loans were to be paid from te proceeds of petitioner 'ans sares of

common stoc;s in te >aplap 6ndstries "orporation, a real estate firm& 'e

loans were covered b# promissor# notes wic were atomaticall# renewable

(rolled.over) ever# #ear at an amont inclding npaid interests, ntil sc

time as petitioner 'an was able to pa# te same from te proceeds of is

aforesaid sares&

/ccording to petitioner 'an, te respondent Can;s emplo#ee reired im

to affi7 two signatres on ever# promissor# note, assring im tat te loan

docments wold be filled ot in accordance wit teir agreement& owever,

after e signed and delivered te loan docments to te respondent Can;,

tese were filled ot in a manner not in accord wit teir agreement, sc tat





te petitioner <ondation was inclded as part# tereto& <rter, prior to its

filing of te complaint, te respondent Can; made no demand on im&

/fter de trial, te cort a quo rendered 4dgment te dispositive portion of

wic reads+

?HEREFORE# in .ie of the fore-oin- e.idences =sic># ar-uments and

considerations# this court here*+ finds the 're'onderance of e.idence in fa.or of the

')aintiff and here*+ renders ud-ment as fo))osB

7% Reuirin- the defendants E)ias ;% Tan and 3a'u)a'u Foundation# Inc% =the

'etitioners herein> to 'a+ oint)+ and so)idari)+ to the ')aintiff A))ied 8an,in-

/or'oration =the res'ondent herein> the amount of4:!#22%27 as 'rinci'a) o*)i-ation

for the four 'romissor+ notes# inc)udin- a)) other char-es inc)uded in the same# ithinterest at 74J 'er annum# com'uted from anuar+ 04# 7:@:# unti) the same are fu))+

'aid# ')us 0J ser.ice char-es and 7J month)+ 'ena)t+ char-es%

0% Reuirin- the defendants E)ias ;% Tan and 3a'u)a'u Foundation# Inc%# to 'a+ oint)+

and so)idari)+# attorne+s fees in the eui.a)ent amount of 0J of the tota) amount due

from the defendants on the 'romissor+ notes# inc)udin- a)) char-esC

!% Reuirin- the defendants E)ias ;% Tan and 3a'u)a'u Foundation# Inc%# to 'a+ oint)+

and so)idari)+ )iti-ation e'enses of 7#$$$%$$ ')us costs of the suit%=!>

On appeal, te "/ affirmed wit modification te 4dgment of te cort a

quo b# deleting te award of attorne#s fees in favor of te respondent Can;

for being witot basis&

'e appellate cort disbelieved petitioner 'ans claim tat te loans were

is personal loans as te promissor# notes evidencing tem sowed pon

teir faces tat tese were obligations of te petitioner <ondation, as

contracted b# petitioner 'an imself in is official and personal caracter& /ppl#ing te parol evidence rle, te "/ li;ewise re4ected petitioner 'ans

assertion tat tere was an nwritten agreement between im and te

respondent Can; tat e wold pa# te loans from te proceeds of is sares

of stoc;s in te >aplap 6ndstries "orp&





<rter, te "/ fond tat demand ad been made b# te respondent

Can; on te petitioners prior to te filing of te complaint a quo& 6t noted tat

te two letters of demand dated Danar# 3, 19-9 and Danar# 30,

19-9% as;ing settlement of te obligation were sent b# te respondent Can;&

'ese were received b# te petitioners as sown b# te registr# retrncards* presented dring trial in te cort a quo&

<inall#, li;e te cort a quo, te "/ applied te doctrine of piercing te veil

of corporate entit# in olding te petitioners 4ointl# and solidaril# liable& 'e

evidence sowed tat petitioner 'an ad represented imself as te $resident

of te petitioner <ondation, opened savings and crrent acconts in its

bealf, and signed te loan docments for and in bealf of te latter& 'e "/,

li;ewise, fond tat te petitioner <ondation ad allowed petitioner 'an to act

as tog e ad te atorit# to contract te loans in its bealf& On te oter and, petitioner 'an cold not escape liabilit# as e ad sed te petitioner

<ondation for is benefit&

/ggrieved, te petitioners now come to te "ort alleging tat+

6& '= "OE5' O< /$$=/>S ?5/A=>F =55= 6 O>6? '/' '= >O/S

SECD="' B/''=5 O< '= 6S'/' $='6'6O /5= />5=/F E= /

=B//C>= =S$6'= /CS="= O< $56O5 =B/&

66& '= "OE5' O< /$$=/>S ?5/A=>F =55= 6 /$$>F6? '= $/5O>

=A6="= 5E>= / '= O"'56= O< $6=5"6? '= A=6> O<

"O5$O5/'= ='6'F /S C/S6S <O5 /DE?6? DO6' / SO>6/5F

>6/C6>6'F O '= $/5' O< $='6'6O=5S =>6/S Q& '/ / >/$E>/$E

<OE/'6O, 6"&-

'e petitioners assail te appellate corts finding tat te loans ad

become de and demandable in view of te two demand letters sent to tem

b# te respondent Can;& 'e petitioners insist tat tere was no prior demand

as te# vigorosl# den# receiving tose letters& /ccording to petitioner 'an,te signatres on te registr# retrn cards were not is&

'e petitioners denial of receipt of te demand letters was rigtfll# given

scant consideration b# te "/ as it eld+











Ehi*its R and S are to )etters of demand# res'ecti.e)+ dated anuar+ !# 7:@: and

anuar+ !$# 7:@:# as,in- sett)ement of the o*)i-ations co.ered *+ the 'romissor+

notes% The first )etter as ritten *+ 8en Tio en- Sen-# Vice5resident of the *an,#

and addressed to 3a'u)a'u Foundation# Inc%# attention of r% E)ias ;% Tan# resident#

hi)e the second as a fina) demand ritten *+ the a''e))ees counse)# addressed to *oth defendants5a''e))ants# and -i.in- them fi.e (& da+s from recei't ithin hich

to sett)e or udicia) action ou)d *e instituted a-ainst them% 8oth )etters ere du)+

recei.ed *+ the defendants# as shon *+ the re-istr+ return cards# mar,ed as Ehi*its

R50 and S57# res'ecti.e)+% The a))e-ation of Tan that he does not ,no ho si-ned the

said re-istr+ return recei'ts merits scant consideration# for there is no shoin- that the

addresses thereon ere ron-% Hence# the dis'uta*)e 'resum'tion that a )etter du)+

directed and mai)ed as recei.ed in the re-u)ar course of mai) ('er 'ar% V# Section !#

Ru)e 7!7 of the Re.ised Ru)es on E.idence& sti)) ho)ds%=1>

'ere is no dispte tat te promissor# notes ad alread# matred&

owever, te petitioners insist tat te loans ad not become de and

demandable as te# den# receipt of te respondent Can;s demand letters&

:en presented te registr# retrn cards dring te trial, petitioner 'an

claimed tat e did not recogni!e te signatres tereon& 'e petitioners

allegation and denial are self.serving& 'e# cannot prevail over te registr#

retrn cards wic constitte docmentar# evidence and wic en4o# te

presmption tat, absent clear and convincing evidence to te contrar#, tese

were reglarl# issed b# te postal officials in te performance of teir official

dt# and tat te# acted in good fait& 9 <rter, as te "/ correctl# opined,

mails are presmed to ave been properl# delivered and received b# te

addressee in te reglar corse of te mail& 10 /s te "/ noted, tere is no

sowing tat te addresses on te registr# retrn cards were wrong& 6t is te

petitioners brden to overcome te presmptions b# sfficient evidence, and

oter tan teir barefaced denial, te petitioners failed to spport teir claim

tat te# did not receive te demand lettersG terefore, no prior demand was

made on tem b# te respondent Can;&

aving establised tat te loans ad become de and demandable, te

"ort sall now resolve te isse of weter te "/ correctl# eld te

petitioners 4ointl# and solidaril# liable terefor&









6n disclaiming an# liabilit# for te loans, te petitioner <ondation

maintains tat tese were contracted b# petitioner 'an in is personal capacit#

and tat it did not benefit terefrom& On te oter and, wile admitting tat

te loans were is personal obligation, petitioner 'an avers tat e ad an

nwritten agreement wit te respondent Can; tat tese loans wold berenewed on a #ear.to.#ear basis and paid from te proceeds of is sares of

stoc; in te >aplap 6ndstries "orp&

'ese contentions are ntenable&

'e "ort particlarl# finds as incredlos petitioner 'ans allegation tat

e was made to sign blan; loan docments and tat te prase 6 BF

O<<6"6/>H$=5SO/> "/$/"6'F was sperimposed b# te respondent

Can;s emplo#ee despite petitioner 'ans protestation& 'e "ort is ardpressed to believe tat a bsinessman of petitioner 'ans statre cold ave

been so careless as to sign blan; loan docments&

6n contrast, as fond b# te "/, te promissor# notes 11 clearl# sowed

pon teir faces tat te# are te obligation of te petitioner <ondation, as

contracted b# petitioner 'an in is official and personal capacit#& 12 Boreover,

te application for credit accommodation,13 te signatre cards of te two

acconts in te name of petitioner <ondation,1 as well as ew "rrent

/ccont 5ecord,1% all accompan#ing te promissor# notes, were signed b#petitioner 'an for and in te name of te petitioner <ondation&1* 'ese

docmentar# evidence neivocall# and categoricall# establis tat te

loans were solidaril# contracted b# te petitioner <ondation and petitioner

'an&

/s a corollar#, te parol evidence rle li;ewise constrains tis "ort to

re4ect petitioner 'ans claim regarding te prported nwritten agreement

between im and te respondent Can; on te pa#ment of te obligation&

Section 9, 5le 130 of te of te 5evised 5les of "ort provides tat wen

te terms of an agreement ave been redced to writing, it is to be considered

as containing all te terms agreed pon and tere can be, between te parties

and teir sccessors.in.interest, no evidence of sc terms oter tan te

contents of te written agreement&1-

















6n tis case, te promissor# notes are te law between te petitioners and

te respondent Can;& 'ese promissor# notes contained matrit# dates as

follows+ <ebrar# %, 19-8, Barc 28, 19-8, /pril 11, 19-8 and Ba# %, 19-8,

respectivel#& 'at tese notes were to be paid on tese dates is clear and

e7plicit& owere was it stated terein tat te# wold be renewed on a #ear.to.#ear basis or rolled.over annall# ntil paid from te proceeds of petitioner

'ans sares in te >aplap 6ndstries "orp& /ccordingl#, tis prported

nwritten agreement cold not be made to var# or contradict te terms and

conditions in te promissor# notes&

=vidence of a prior or contemporaneos verbal agreement is generall# not

admissible to var#, contradict or defeat te operation of a valid contract&18 :ile parol evidence is admissible to e7plain te meaning of written

contracts, it cannot serve te prpose of incorporating into te contractadditional contemporaneos conditions wic are not mentioned at all in

writing, nless tere as been frad or mista;e& 19 o sc allegation ad been

made b# te petitioners in tis case&

<inall#, te appellate cort did not err in olding te petitioners 4ointl# and

solidaril# liable as it applied te doctrine of piercing te veil of corporate entit#&

'e petitioner <ondation asserts tat it as a personalit# separate and

distinct from tat of its $resident, petitioner 'an, and tat it cannot be eld

solidaril# liable for te loans of te latter&

'e "ort agrees wit te "/ tat te petitioners cannot ide beind te

corporate veil nder te following circmstances+

The e.idence shos that Tan has *een re'resentin- himse)f as the resident of

3a'u)a'u Foundation# Inc% He o'ened a sa.in-s account and a current account in the

names of the cor'oration# and si-ned the a'')ication form as e)) as the necessar+

s'ecimen si-nature cards (Ehi*its A# 8 and /& tice# for himse)f and for the

foundation% He su*mitted a notari<ed Secretar+s /ertificate (Ehi*it 6& from the

cor'oration# attestin- that he has *een authori<ed# inter alia# to si-n for and in *eha)f

of the 3a'u)a'u Foundation an+ and a)) chec,s# drafts or other orders ith res'ect to

the *an,C to transact *usiness ith the 8an,# ne-otiate )oans# a-reements# o*)i-ations#

'romissor+ notes and other commercia) documentsC and to initia))+ o*tain a )oan

for 7$$#$$$%$$ from an+ *an, (Ehi*its 657 and 650&% Under these circumstances#







the defendant cor'oration is )ia*)e for the transactions entered into *+ Tan on its

*eha)f%=0$>

$er its Secretar#s "ertificate, te petitioner <ondation ad given its

$resident, petitioner 'an, ostensible and apparent atorit# to inter alia dealwit te respondent Can;& /ccordingl#, te petitioner <ondation is estopped

from estioning petitioner 'ans atorit# to obtain te sb4ect loans from te

respondent Can;& 6t is a familiar doctrine tat if a corporation ;nowingl#

permits one of its officers, or an# oter agent, to act witin te scope of an

apparent atorit#, it olds im ot to te pblic as possessing te power to

do tose actsG and ts, te corporation will, as against an#one wo as in

good fait dealt wit it trog sc agent, be estopped from den#ing te

agents atorit#&21

6n fine, tere is no cogent reason to deviate from te "/s rling tat te

petitioners are 4ointl# and solidaril# liable for te loans contracted wit te

respondent Can;&

4HEREFORE, premises considered, te petition is =6= and te

ecision dated Dne 2*, 199* and 5esoltion dated /gst 19, 199* of te

"ort of /ppeals in "/.?&5& "A o& 3-1*2 are /<<65B= in toto&

SO OR#ERE#.

G.R. No. 55&91 6ay 21, 1992

ES!ERANZA OR"LLO, /n +r +a8 an( /n +a8 o +r :/8(r+n, petitioner,

vs&

HONORALE CORT OF A!!EALS an( CATAL"NA OR"LLO, respondents&

Crisostomo F. Pariñas for petitioner.

#A;"#E, JR., J.:

6n tis petition for review on certiorari nder 5le % of te 5les of "ort filed on 2 ovember 1980, petitioner

rges tis "ort to review and reverse te decision 1 of te "ort of /ppeals ('ird ivision) in "&/&.?&5& o&

*%3*.5, promlgated on 3 September 1980, wic reversed and set aside te 3 Dne 19-8 decision of

Cranc 66 of te ten "ort of <irst 6nstance (now 5egional 'rial "ort) of /bra in "ivil "ase o& 103&







On 10 <ebrar# 19--, petitioner, for erself and on bealf of er cildren, filed before te abovementioned trial cort

a complaint against private respondent and Barcos Corillo for te recover# of several parcels of land located at

Cgbgis, Qillat, >angiden, /bra particlarl# described in said complaint, nder te first case of action, as follows+

(a) / parcel of land (5iceland nirr& and pastreland) & & & wit an area of 1231 s& m&G wit assessed

vale in te sm of $0&00G nder 'a7 eclaration o& *319 in te name of =speran!a Corillo, et

al&G

(b) / parcel of land (5iceland nirr&) & & & wit an area of 980 s& m&G wit an assessed vale in te

sm of $0&00G nder 'a7 eclaration o& *320 in te name of =speran!a Corillo, et al&G

(c) / parcel of land (5iceland nirr&) & & & wit an area of *98 s& m&G wit assessed vale in te sm

of $20&00G nder 'a7 eclaration o& *321 in te name of =speran!a Corillo, et al&G

(d) / parcel of land ("ornland) & & & wit an area of %-0 s& m&G wit an assessed vale of $20&00G

nder 'a7 eclaration o& *322 in te name of =speran!a Corillo, et al& 2

and one.fift (1H%) ndivided portion of two (2) parcels of land, also located in te same place as te above

for () parcels, particlarl# described nder te second case of action, ts+

(e) / parcel of land (5iceland nirr&) & & & wit an area of 10 s& m&G wit an assessed vale of

$*0&00G nder 'a7 eclaration o& 1-% in te name of Aenancio CorilloG

(f) / parcel of land ("ornland) & & & wit an area of *8 s& m&G wit an assessed vale of $20&00G

nder 'a7 eclaration o& 0-* in te name of Aenancio Corillo& 3

'e complaint was doc;eted as "ivil "ase o& 103&

6n te complaint, petitioner alleges tat te abovementioned parcels (a), (b), (c) and (d) were originall# owned b# er

late sband, =lpidio Corillo, wit wom se ad for () cildren, namel#+ $atricia, Belecio, Conifacia and Qirino&

/ltog said parcels of land were nregistered, te# were declared in 198 in te name of =lpidio nder 'a7

eclaration os& 0-31, 0-32, 0-33 and 0-3, respectivel#& ' =lpidio ad been in peacefl, pblic, continos

and ninterrpted possession tereof in concept of owner even before is marriage to petitioner and ntil

is deat in 19-0& /fter is deat, petitioner contined to possess and cltivate said parcels of land and

en4o# te frits tereof ntil sometime in 19-1.19-2 wen private respondent and Barcos Corillo, =lpidios

siblings, forcibl# and nlawfll# dispossessed er of te propert#& espite repeated demands, Barcos and

te private respondent refsed to retrn te propert# to te petitioner and er cildren& 6n 19-, new 'a7

eclarations, namel# os& *319, *320, *321 and *322 5 for parcels (a), (b), (c) and (d), respectivel#, were

issed in er name& Epon te oter and, parcels (e) and (f), also nregistered, were inerited b# =lpidio,

is broter Barcos and sisters "atalina, /relia and 5osita, from teir fater, Aenancio Corillo& =lpidios

1H% pro-indiviso sare terein was nlawfll# ta;en b# private respondent sometime in 19-1G te latter

refsed to retrn it to petitioner and er cildren, wo are =lpidios eirs, despite repeated demands&

$etitioner ten pra#s tat 4dgment be rendered declaring er and er cildren owners of parcels (a), (b), (c) and (d),

as well as te 1H% pro-indiviso portion of parcels (e) and (f), and ordering te private respondent and Barcos Corillo to

pa# actal and moral damages pls costs&

6n teir /nswer filed on 1 Barc 19--, private respondent claims tat parcels (a), (c) and (d) were sold to er b# er

late broter =lpidio in 193%, wile Barcos Corillo claims tat parcel (b) was sold to im b# =lpidio sometime in 193-,

long before =lpidios marriage to petitioner& /ltog te# did not declare tese parcels for ta7ation prposes in teir

respective names, te# immediatel# too; possession and occpied te same as owners tereof& $rivate respondent



ad been pa#ing te realt# ta7es on parcels (a), (c) and (d) since 198 & and e7plains er failre to secre in er

name ta7 declarations for said parcels dring =lpidios lifetime b# alleging tat se trsted im becase

e was er broter and e ad assred er tat se cold transfer in er favor te title tereto an#time&

/fter te Second :orld :ar, =lpidio and 5osita, anoter sibling, sold to er teir respective ndivided

sares in parcels (e) and (f)&

On 1% Barc 19--, private respondent alone filed an /mended /nswer& On te oter and, on % /pril 19--, $atricia

and Belencio Corillo filed a motion to witdraw as co.plaintiffs on te grond tat te# did not atori!e teir inclsion

as sc and tat te private respondent is te tre and lawfl owner of te land in estion& 7

/t te trial, private respondent relied eavil# on =7ibit @3@, a private docment prportedl# sowing tat =lpidio sold

to er all is propert# for $0&00, and =7ibit @@, wic se claims to be a deed of sale of parcels (a), (c) and (d)

allegedl# e7ected b# =lpidio Corillo in 193%& Epon te oter and, Barcos Corillo claimed tat te deed of sale

evidencing te sale to im of parcel (b) was lost dring te Second :orld :ar& Cot parties claim actal possession

of te propert#& $rivate respondent and Barcos Corillo even claimed possession for more tan tirt# (30) #ears&

/fter trial on te merits, te lower cort rendered on 3 Dne 19-8 a decision in favor of erein petitioner, te

dispositive portion of wic reads+

:=5=<O5=, in view of te foregoing, 4dgment is ereb# rendered declaring te plaintiffs as te

tre owners of parcels /, C, " and described in par& of te complaint and as co.owners of

parcels = and < described in par& * of te complaint wit 5osita Corillo, /relia Corillo and te

defendants "atalina Corillo and Barcos Corillo& :it costs against te defendants& <

'e trial cort arrived at tis decision on te basis of te following findings of fact+

'e claim of ownersip b# te plaintiffs wit respect to te for parcels of land described in par& of

te complaint is preponderantl# establised b# 'a7 eclaration os& -31, -32, -33 and -3,

=7ibits, @/, /.1, /.2 and /.3@ for te plaintiffs& 'ese ta7 declarations covering te for parcels of

land in estion are ta7 declarations issed in 198 and is (sic ) in te name of =lpidio Corillo,

sband of plaintiff =speran!a Corillo& efendants never declared it (sic ) in teir name (sic ) and noaction or attempt watsoever was made b# te defendants to declare it (sic ) in teir name (sic )

dring te lifetime of =lpidio Corillo& 6t was onl# after te deat of =lpidio Corillo and te instittion

of tis action b# te plaintiffs tat defendants too; action and strangel# declared it (sic ) in teir

names&

Obviosl#, te bl; of evidence for te plaintiffs are (sic ) te ta7 declarations in te name of =lpidio

Corillo wic do not absoltel# prove teir ownersip& Ct te circmstances obtaining in tis case

renders (sic ) te ta7 declarations I =7ibits @/, /.1, /.2 and /.3@, reliable and predominantl# point

tat plaintiffs are owners of te for parcels of land described in par& of te complaint as against

te plaintiffs (sic )& <irst, it will be noted tat =7ibits /, /.1, /.2 and /.3 were prepared and issed

long before te deat of =lpidio Corillo& e was ten a bacelor aving married te plaintiff

=speran!a Corillo in 19%0& efendant "atalina Corillo married long before te 2nd :orld :ar&

efendant Barcos Corillo li;ewise married before :orld :ar 66& efendants ave propertiesdeclared in teir names& Barcos Corillo accompanied te /ssessors wo measred te for

parcels of land according to im (sic )& espite te stats of te parties and te /ssessors aving

been accompanied b# defendant Barcos Corillo, still te for parcels of land were declared in te

name of =lpidio Corillo& 6t is nconceivable (sic ) w# it was (sic ) declared in te name of =lpidio

Corillo, if it does (sic ) not belong to im& 're, tat ta7 declarations are not conclsive proof of

ownersip, bt it cannot be gainsaid especiall# in rral areas li;e >angiden, /bra were lands are

not srve#ed and titled, tat ta7 declarations are strong evidence of possession and ownersip&



Secondl#, te for parcels of land described in par& of te complaint were declared in te name of

=lpidio Corillo for 29 #ears and no action watsoever was ta;en b# te defendants to ave te ta7

declarations (=7ibits /, /.1, /.2 and /.3) be (sic ) cancelled and declared te lands (sic ) in teir

names dring te lifetime of te declared owner =lpidio Corillo and immediatel# after is deat& 6t

was onl# in 19-- after te filing of te complaint and after te plaintiffs cased te cancellation of

=7ibits /, /.1, /.2 and /.3 and declared te lands in teir names wen defendants attempted to

declare it (sic ) also in teir names& 'e nfatomable tolerance of te defendants of aving te for () parcels of land be (sic ) declared in te name of teir deceased broter, =lpidio Corillo in 198

and remained (sic ) in is name after is marriage wit (sic ) te plaintiff =speran!a Corillo in 19%0

even (sic ) after is deat in 19-1, is fatal and strongl# negate teir (sic ) defendants claim of

ownersip& o person li;e te defendants will ever allow isHer propert# be (sic ) declared in te

name of anoter for twent#.nine (29) #ears& 'e fact tat te lands were declared in te name of

=lpidio Corillo for twent#.nine (29) #ears copled b# (sic ) is actal possession dring is lifetime

ntil is deat in 19-1 as testified to b# =speran!a Corillo and "lemente >lane!a wo is an

ninterested witness strongl# otweiged te evidence for te defendants and convincingl# indicate

tat te for parcels of land described in par& of te complaint reall# belong to =lpidio Corillo& 'e

claim of defendants tat te# are (sic ) in actal possession before :orld :ar 66 p to te present is

persasivel# belied b# =7ibits /, /.1, /.2 and /.3 and te testimon# of "lemente >lane!a&

'e claim of defendant "atalina Corillo tat se prcased parcels /, " and described in par& of te complaint from er deceased broter =lpidio Corillo before :orld :ar 66 as evidence (sic ) b#

=7ibits @3@ and @@ appears nreliable and incredible& =7ibit @3@ wic is an ac;nowledgment

receipt dated Ba# 12, 19* made no mention of wat propert# as been sold& 'ere is no evidence

of an# transfer of ownersip& 6n fact, tere is noting clear from te evidence as to wat land of

=lpidio Corillo is referred to in =7ibit @3@& <rom te terms of =7ibit @3@ and te alleged

consideration tereof, it ts becomes obvios tat it is onl# a receipt evidencing a loan of $0&00&

=7ibit @@ (receipt) wic is te main basis of te claim of ownersip b# defendant "atalina Corillo

wit respect to parcels /, " and in par& of te complaint, appears nreliable and cannot prevail

against te evidence for te plaintiffs& 'is =7ibit @@ for defendant "atalina Corillo is ndated and

nsigned& efendant "atalina Corillo testified tat se does not ;now te contends of =7ibit @@&

=lpidio Corillo as sown b# =7ibit @3@ for defendant "atalina Corillo and =7ibits = and < for te

plaintiffs ;nows ow to write is name& Fet, =7ibit @@ was not signed b# im& /side from te patent

defects of =7ibit @@ on its face wic renders it nreliable, it will be noted tat dring te pre.trial

proceedings, defendant "atalina Corillo presented =7ibit @@ to spport er claim as alleged in er

answer of aving prcased parcels /, " and from =lpidio Corillo in 193%& "learl# embodied,

owever, in =7ibit @@ are ta7 declarations os& 0-32, 0-31 and 0-3 wic are indeed ta7

declarations in 198 in te name of =lpidio Corillo& "onsidering tat =7ibit @@ is a docment

e7ected in 193% according to te defendant "atalina Corillo, w# are 'a7 eclarations os& -31,

-32 and -3 wic were issed onl# in 198 incorporatedJ 'e inclsion of non.e7istent docment

(sic ) in =7ibit @@ at te time of its alleged e7ection absoltel# renders =7ibit @@ woll# nwort#

and ndeserving of an# credence& 9

$rivate respondent appealed from te adverse decision to te respondent "ort& er co.defendant, Barcos Corillo,

did not&

'e appeal was doc;eted as "&/&.?&5& o& *%3*.5& 6n er /ppellants Crief, private respondent assigns te

following errors+

6

'/' '= </"'S 5=>6= E$O 6S (sic ) O' SE$$O5'= CF =A6="=&



66

'/' '= ="6S6O 6S O' 6 /""O5/"= :6' >/:&

On 3 September 1980, te respondent "ort promlgated its decision 10 reversing te decision of te trial cort,

ts+

:=5=<O5=, te 4dgment appealed from is ereb# set aside and anoter 4dgment is ereb#

rendered declaring defendant "atalina Corillo as te owner of parcels (a), (c) and (d) and of te

one.fift portion of =lpidio Corillo in parcels (e) and (f)G tat defendant Barcos Corillo is te owner of

parcel (b)G wit costs against te plaintiffs&

SO O5=5=&

'e respondent "ort made te following disisitions to spport its decision+

:e are convinced tat te preponderance of te evidence tilt (sic ) eavil# in favor of defendant&

efendant establised se as been in possession in te concept of owner of said tree parcels of

land (a), (c) and (d) since er prcase of te same long before te war and se cltivated tesame in te concept of owner, pa#ing te real estate ta7es and tereafter declaring it in er name

wile Barcos Corillo acired parcel (b) from =lpidio since 1938 of wic e too; possession in te

concept of owner, and declared te same in is name pa#ing te real estate ta7es& o less tan

Belecio Corillo, son of plaintiff =speran!a, not onl# witdrew as part# plaintiff wit is sister $atricia

bt e even testified tat e ;new from te ver# mot of is fater =lpidio wile e was still alive

tat e sold te propert# in estion to defendant "atalina Corillo& 6t as also been sown tat

=lpidio Corillo sold is 1H% portion of parcels (e) and (f) also before te war to defendant and se

ad been in continos possession since ten in te concept of owner&

Ender /rticle 113- of te "ivil "ode, sc ninterrpted, adverse, open possession for tirt# (30)

#ears b# defendants regardless of teir title or good fait polds said defendants rigt over te

propert#& ($arcotillo vs& $arcotillo, 12 S"5/ 3%, 0)&

6n finding for te plaintiffs te trial cort relied on te ta7 declarations in te name of =lpidio as

proof tat plaintiffs are te owners of te estioned propert# since te propert# is ntitledG tat for

29 #ears no action was ta;en b# defendants to declare te propert# in teir name (sic ) and it was

onl# in 19-- after te filing of te complaint tat defendants so declared te properties in teir

name (sic )G tat =7ibit is nreliable being nsigned b# =lpidio wen tere is evidence tat e

cold sign is nameG tat =7ibit 3 did not mention te propert# soldG tat =7ibit was made in

193% as alleged in te answer bt srprisingl# it embodied 'a7 eclarations -31, -32 and -3

wic were issed onl# in 198G and tat te alleged sale of te rigt of =lpidio over parcels (e) and

(f) are witot receipts&

:e disagree& eclaration of ownersip for ta7ation prposes, or assessment declaration and ta7

receipts do not constitte evidence of ownersip& 'e# are onl# prima facie evidence ofpossession& (=vangelista vs& 'aba##ong, - $il& *0-G "asimiro vs& <ernande!, 9 $il& %*2)

owever, if te older of a (sic ) land presents a deed of conve#ance in is favor from te former

owner tereof to spport is claim of ownersip, te declaration of ownersip and ta7 receipts

relative to te propert# ma# be sed to prove good fait on is part in occp#ing and possessing

te same& (=lmbaring vs& =lmbaring, 12 $i& 38) /nd wile it is tre tat ta7 receipts do not

prove titled (sic ) to a land, neverteless wen considered wit te actal possession of te propert#

b# te applicant, te# constitte evidence of great weigt in spport of te claim of title of



ownersip b# prescription& (Aiernes vs& /gpaoa, 1 $il& 28*G >and 5egistration and Bortgages b#

Aentra, pp& 12%.12*)

$laintiffs admitted tat defendants are in possession of te lands in estion and te records sow

tat even dring te lifetime of =lpidio, te defendant ad been pa#ing te real propert# ta7es of

te propert# (=7s& 1 to 1.6)& 'e sale of parcels (a), (c) and (d) to defendant is evidenced b#

=7ibits 3 and & /ltog =7ibit 3 does not indicate te propert# sb4ect of te sale, scdeficienc# can be attribted to te fact tat tis was a docment e7ected between broter and

sister witot te assistance of a law#er bt testimonial evidence as been addced tat cred tis

defect& 're it is tat =7ibit appears not to ave been signed b# =lpidio and e merel# imprinted

a cross over is name wen it appears tat e ;new ow to sign& owever, defendants "atalina

and Barcos Corillo categoricall# testified tat =lpidio signed is name onl# b# cop#ing a sample&

ence, it is nderstandable if =lpidio did not sign =7ibit for e mst not ave been frnised a

(sic ) gide to be copied& o evidence was addced tat =7ibit was actall# e7ected in 193%&

:at was establised is tat =lpidio sold said tree parcels to defendant "atalina before te war&

6n confirmation of said sale, =7ibit mst ave been e7ected on or before 198 tat is w# it

reflects te 'a7 eclarations of said propert# to be effective in te same #ear&

On te oter and, otside of te fact tat te propert# remained to be declared in te name of

=lpidio plaintiffs ave not addced an# oter evidence to bttress teir claim of ownersip& $laintiff=speran!a paid for te real propert# ta7es of te propert# onl# on Dne 22, 19-- after te complaint

was filed in cort& (=7ibit ") 6t is not improbable tat te reason w# te properties remained in te

name of =lpidio inspite of te fact tat it as long been sold to defendants is becase tis is a sale

between broter and sister were mtal trst and confidence is to be e7pected& 6ndeed, dring te

lifetime of =lpidio e never estioned te acts of ownersip e7ercised b# te defendants over te

propert# and even after is deat in 19-0, plaintiff =speran!a onl# remembered to assert teir

alleged rigt in 19-* wen se attempted to tal; to defendant wo told er it was alread# sold to

tem and #et it was onl# in 19-- tat te complaint was filed&

$etitioner too; tis present recorse as;ing Es to review te respondent "orts findings of facts and reverse its

decision on te grond tat te same is based solel# on @speclation, srmise and con4ectre,@ and tat it committed

a @misappreension of facts&@

/fter private respondent filed er "omment and te petitioner sbmitted a 5epl#, tis "ort gave de corse to te

petition 11 and reired te petitioner to sbmit er Crief witin tirt# (30) da#s from notice, 12 wic se

complied wit& 13$rivate respondent sbseentl# filed er Crief& 1'

'e petition is meritorios&

'o begin wit, te respondent "ort committed a grave error in reversing te trial corts 4dgment insofar as it

concerns defendant Barcos Corillo& /s earlier stated, te latter did not appeal from te trial corts decision& /s

against im, and more particlarl# wit respect to parcel (b), te decision as long become final and te respondent

"ort is witot 4risdiction to review te same& 15 Oterwise stated, be#ond te period to appeal, a 4dgment is

no longer witin te scope of te power of review of an# cort&

1&

'e appeal interposed b# privaterespondent did not benefit Barcos Corillo becase te former does not ave an#ting to do wit parcel (b)

and te defense in respect tereto is e7clsive to te latter&

'e respondent "ort li;ewise erred in reversing te trial cort and rling tat private respondent is te owner of

parcels (a), (c) and (d) and =lpidio Corillos 1H% pro-indiviso sare in parcels (e) and (f)&

6t is of corse settled tat te appellate corts findings of fact are binding and mst be respected b# tis

"ort& 17 'ere are, owever, recogni!ed e7ceptions tereto, 1< among wic are wen te factal findings



of te trial cort and te appellate cort are conflicting, 19 wen te# are totall# devoid of spport in te

record or are so glaringl# erroneos as to constitte serios abse of discretion& 20

'ese e7ceptions obtain in te present case&

'e fact tat parcels (a), (c) and (d) were originall# owned b# =lpidio Corillo is not dispted b# private respondent& 6n

fact, se claims to ave derived er title over te same from te former trog a sale in 193%& 's, te estion to

be resolved is weter or not =lpidio Corillo did in fact sell te said parcels of land to te private respondent&

'o sbstantiate er claim, private respondent presented two (2) docments, =7ibits @3@ and @@& 'e trial cort in its

4dgment described =7ibit @3@, dated 12 Ba# 19*, as a mere ac;nowledgment receipt of a loan of $0&00 and not a

sale for it does not mention an# propert# sold and is not ac;nowledged before a notar# pblic& 6t ten conclded tat

said instrment is a mere receipt evidencing a loan& On te oter and, =7ibit is an ndated and nsigned

docment written in lead pencil on simple grade paper& 'e instrment as no witnesses, is not ac;nowledged before

a notar# pblic and as a mere cross over te written name of =lpidio Corillo& 6t was dl# proven tat =lpidio ;new

ow to write and sign is name& /ltog =7ibit @@ was prportedl# e7ected in 193%, te same mentions 'a7

eclaration os& 0-31, 0-32, 0-33 and 0-3 issed in 198 in te name of =lpidio Corillo& $rivate respondent erself

testified tat se ad no ;nowledge of te contents of said instrment& 'e trial cort rled =7ibit @@ as @woll#

nwort# and ndeserving of an# credence&@

6n reversing te foregoing findings, te respondent "ort tried to 4stif# te deficiencies and discrepancies in =7ibit

@3@ b# sa#ing tat te absence of specifications as to wat propert# was sold is nderstandable becase te

transaction was between broter and sister& 6t added tat tis defect was cred b# testimonial evidence& 6t made no

attempt, owever, to e7plain te variance in te date of te alleged sale (193%) and te date of te instrment (19*)&

/s to =7ibit @@, te respondent "ort accepted private respondents e7planation for te absence of te signatre of

=lpidio Corillo on te prported deed of sale sa#ing tat contrar# to petitioners assertion, =lpidio did not reall# ;now

ow to write is name& $rivate respondent and Barcos Corillo testified tat =lpidios signatre appeared on is voters

registration record and voters 6 card 21 onl# becase e was given a sample to cop#& 'e# declared tat

nli;e tose occasions, at te time of te sale, =lpidio was not given an# sample to cop#G tis e7plains

w# e 4st printed a cross over is name& /s to w# it mentions ta7 declarations issed in 198, altog

it is claimed to ave been e7ected in 193%, te respondent "ort teori!es and speclates tat+

& & & 6n confirmation of said sale, =7ibit mst ave been e7ected on or before 198 tat is w# it

reflects te 'a7 eclarations of said propert# to be effective in te same #ear& 22

6t is ts clear tat wat was originall# sbmitted b# private respondent as te original deed of sale was later

accepted b# te respondent "ort as a deed of confirmation of sale&

Cot =7ibits @3@ and @@ are private docments& ence, before te# ma# be received in evidence, teir de

e7ection and atenticit# mst first be proven b# te part# presenting tem& 23 /t te earing of tis case before

te trial cort, te controlling rle on tis point was Section 21, 5le 132 of te 5les of "ort wic

provided+

Sec& 21& Private writing, its execution and authenticity, how proved & I Cefore an# private writing

ma# be received in evidence, its de e7ection and atenticit# mst be proved eiter+

(a) C# an#one wo saw te writing e7ectedG

(b) C# evidence of te genineness of te andwriting of te ma;erG or



(c) C# a sbscribing witness& 2'

$rivate respondent did not present an#one wo actall# saw te e7ection of =7ibits @3@ and @@, witnessed =lpidio

affi7 is signatre on =7ibit @3@ or ma;e te cross over is written name in =7ibit @@& 'ere are no sbscribing

witnesses& 'e de e7ection ten of =7ibits @3@ and @@, as te alleged deeds of sale transferring title over said

parcels of land to private respondent, was not satisfactoril# provenG ts, te same can not be received in evidence&

=ven if :e are to assme tat =7ibits @3@ and @@ are admissible in evidence, te# still do not satisfactoril# prove te

transfers of titles over te sb4ect parcels to te private respondent& /s earlier pointed ot, =7ibit @3@ ma;es no

mention of an# propert# sold& ence, it ardl# alifies as a deed of sale& 6t sffers from a patent and not 4st an

intrinsic ambigit#& 'e respondent "ort ten committed an error b# giving credence to te testimonies offered to

cre sc ambigit#& 6t disregarded te parol evidence rle ten applicable, namel#, Section -, 5le 130 of te 5les

of "ort, wic provided as follows+

Sec& -& Evidence of written agreement & :en te terms of an agreement ave been redced to

writing, it is to be considered as containing all sc terms, and, terefore, tere can be, between

te parties and teir sccessors in interest, no evidence of te terms of te agreement oter tan

te contents of te writing, e7cept in te following cases+

(a) :ere a mista;e or imperfection of te writing, or its failre to e7press te

tre intent and agreement of te parties, or te validit# of te agreement is pt in

isse b# te pleadingsG

(b) :en tere is an intrinsic ambigit# in te writing&

'e term @agreement@ incldes wills& 25

Cefore parol evidence ma# be admitted in order to identif#, e7plain or define te sb4ect matter of a writing, it mst

first be sown tat te writing itself alread# contains a description sfficient to serve as a fondation for te admission

of sc parol evidenceG te evidence sold also be consistent wit te writing& Oterwise stated, in order to admit

parol evidence to aid in te description of te sb4ect matter of a deed or oter writing, tere mst be a description

tat will serve as a fondation for sc evidenceG te writing mst at least give some data from wic te description

ma# be fond and made certain& $arol evidence is not admissible to identif# te propert# were te description

tereof is so vage as to amont to no description at all& 6n oter words, parol evidence is not permitted to sppl# a

description, bt onl# to appl# it& 2&

6n is "ommentar# on te 5les of "ort, 27 former "ief Dstice Banel A& Boran e7plains te rle in te

evident of patent ambigit#, as is te case in =7ibit @3@+

& & & 'e rle is tat @if te words of a docment are so defective or ambigos as to be nmeaning,

no evidence can be given to sow wat te ator of te docment intended to sa#&@ (Step,

=vidence, /rt& 91) 'e reason for te rle, in te langage of Br& Dstice Stor#, is tat @if te

langage be too dobtfl for an# settled constrction, b# te admission of parol evidence #o

create and do not merel# constre te contract& Fo attempt to do tat for te part# wic e asnot cosen to do for imselfG and te law ver# propert# denies sc an atorit# to corts of

Dstice&@ ($eisc v& ic;son, <ed& "as& o& 10, 911, 1 Bason, 9&) /s >ord Cacon said, !"m#iguitas

patens cannot be olpen b# averment&@ (Cacon, Ba7&, 23) / case of patent ambigit# is tat of a

deed werein @a parcel of land@ witot description is donated& 'e donation is void& 'e

ncertaint# cannot be e7plained b# parol evidence& (:igmore on =vidence, 2d& ed&, p& 1&) 'e

following appears to be te most accrate and most compreensive statement of te rle regarding

patent ambigit#+ @6n oter words and more generall#, if te cort, placing itself in te sitation in

wic te testator or contracting part# stood at te time of e7ecting te instrment, and wit a fll



nderstanding of te force and import of te words, cannot ascertain is meaning and intention

from te langage of te instrment, ten it is a case of incrable, opeless ncertaint# and te

instrment is, terefore, so far inoperative and void&@ ($almer v& /lbee, %0 6a&, 29, 32, oting 1

?reenleaf on =vidence, par& 300&)

/s to =7ibit @@, :e agree wit te trial cort tat it cold not ave been prepared in 193%, as contended b# private

respondent, becase it ma;es reference to 'a7 eclarations issed in 198, tirteen (13) #ears later& "ommon senseand logic re4ect sc contention& Enfortnatel#, te respondent "ort belabored te e7planation tat =7ibit @@ mst

ave been e7ected on or before 198 to confirm te prior sale& 'is is nacceptable as it is prel# con4ectral&

/bsent an# evidence tat it was signed b# =lpidio Corillo, it is not difficlt to conclde tat tis docment does not

proceed from an# legitimate sorce& 6t is one wic cold easil# be fabricated& 'e trial cort did not ten err wen it

considered =7ibit @@ as @woll# nwort# and ndeserving of an# credence&@

6t is not also tre, as was eld b# te respondent "ort, tat te conclsion of te trial cort tat =lpidio Corillo was in

possession of te propert# in concept of owner ntil is deat, is based solel# on te ta7 declarations in is name& /s

sown earlier, te cort considered te testimonies of te petitioner and one "lemente >lane!a wom te trial cort

described as @an ninterested witness&@ 's+

& & & 'e fact tat te lands were declared in te name of =lpidio Corillo for twent#.nine (29) #ears

copled b# is actal possession dring is lifetime ntil is deat in 19-1 as testified to b#

=speran!a Corillo and "lemente >lane!a wo is an ninterested witness strongl# otweiged te

evidence for te defendants and convincingl# indicate tat te for parcels of land described in

paragrap of te complaint reall# belong to =lpidio Corillo& & & &

6t is ts clear tat te atorities cited b# te respondent "ort on te probative vale of te ta7 declarations favor

te erein petitioner and not te private respondent& <or indeed, wile ta7 declarations and ta7 receipts do not

constitte evidence of ownersip, te# are prima facie evidence of possession& /ccordingl#, since =lpidio Corillo,

dring is lifetime, and ten te petitioner, after is deat, secred and were issed ta7 declarations for te parcels of

land in estion, and were in fact in possession tereof, te e7cse offered b# private respondent as to er failre to

obtain te ta7 declarations deserves no consideration at all& 'e flimsiness or implasibilit# of te e7cse becomes

more apparent wen :e consider te findings of te trial cort tat private respondent as oter properties declared

in er name for ta7ation prposes and tat neiter se nor Barcos ob4ected to te measrement b# te assessors ofte for () parcels for =lpidio Corillo&

'e conclsion ten is inevitable tat te late =lpidio Corillo did not sell and alienate parcels (a), (c) and (d) to private

respondent&

/s to parcels (e) (f), private respondent presented no deed of sale in er favor&

$rivate respondent can not li;ewise see; refge nder a claim of ownersip b# virte of acisitive prescription&

/cisitive prescription of dominion reires tat tere be pblic, peacefl and ninterrpted possession in te

concept of owner 2< for a period of ten (10) #ears, in case of ordinar# prescription, 29 and tirt# (30) #ears, in

case of e7traordinar# prescription&30

/fter reviewing te evidence presented before it, te trial cort conclded tat =lpidio Corillo ad actal, peacefl and

continos possession of te sb4ect parcels of land dring is lifetime and ntil is deat in 19-0& 'e respondent

"ort reversed tis finding and rled tat it was private respondent wo ad te possession since er prcase

tereof in 193%&

6t is a matter of 4dicial polic# to accord te trial corts findings of facts wit te igest respect and not to distrb te

same on appeal nless tere are strong and impelling reasons to do so& 31 'e reason for tis is tat trial corts



ave more opportnit# and facilities to e7amine factal matters tan appellate corts& 32 'e# are in a

better position to assess te credibilit# of witnesses, not onl# b# te natre of teir testimonies, bt also

b# teir demeanor on te

stand& 33

6n $hauf vs& Court of "ppeals, 3' :e rled+

=lementar# is te rle tat te conclsions and findings of fact of te trial cort are entitled to great

weigt on appeal and sold not be distrbed nless for strong and cogent reasons& (Ada& de

/lberto, et al& vs& "/, et al&, 1-3 S"5/ 3* 1989) /bsent an# sbstantial proof, terefore, tat te

trial corts decision was gronded entirel# on speclations, srmises or con4ectres, te same

mst be accorded fll consideration and respect& 'is sold be so becase te trial cort is, after

all, in a mc better position to observe and correctl# appreciate te respective parties evidence as

te# were presented& (Batabena vs& "/, et al&, 1-3 S"5/ 1-0 1989)

:e find no impelling, compelling or cogent reason to overtrn te findings of fact of te trial cort&

:=5=<O5=, te instant petition is ?5/'=& 'e callenged decision of te "ort of /ppeals is ereb#

5=A=5S= and S=' /S6= and te 4dgment of te 5egional 'rial "ort of /bra dated 3 Dne 19-8 in "ivil "aseo& 103 is ereb# /<<65B= and 5=6S'/'=&

SO O5=5=&

[G.R. No. 79962 : December 10, 1990.]

192 SCRA 209

LUCIO R. CRUZ , Petitioner, vs. COURT O A!!"ALS AND CONRADO #. SALONGA ,Respondents.

D " C I S I O N

CRUZ, J.:

The private respondent Conrado Salonga filed a complaint for collection and damages

against petitioner Lucio Cruz ** in the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City alleging that in thecourse of their business transactions of buying and selling fish, the petitioner borrowed from

him an amount of P!,"""#"", evidenced by a receipt dated $ay %, &'(), mared as +hibit-, reading as follows.

!/%/()

Received the amount of Thirty 0ive Thousand Cash from Rodrigo 1uiambao and ConradoSalonga on the day of $ay %, &'()#

Sgd# Lucio Cruz

The plaintiff claimed that of this amount, only P)","""#"" had been paid, leaving a balanceof P&","""#""2 that in 3ugust &'(), he and the defendant agreed that the latter would

grant him an eclusive right to purchase the harvest of certain fishponds leased by Cruz inechange for certain loan accommodations2 that pursuant thereto, Salonga delivered to

Cruz various loans totaling P&!,)!"#"", evidenced by four receipts and an additional



P%,"""#"", the receipt of which had been lost2 and that Cruz failed to comply with his partof the agreement by refusing to deliver the alleged harvest of the fishpond and the amount

of his indebtedness#

Cruz denied having contracted any loan from Salonga# 4y way of special defense, he alleged

that he was a lessee of several hectares of a fishpond owned by 5emesio 6abut and thatsometime in $ay &'(), he entered into an agreement with Salonga whereby the latter

would purchase 7payaw8 fish in certain areas of the fishpond from $ay &'() to 3ugust &!,&'()# They also agreed that immediately thereafter, Salonga would sublease 7bubuwisan8

the same fishpond for a period of one year# Cruz admitted having received on $ay %, &'(),the amount of P!,"""#"" and on several occasions from 3ugust &!, &'(), to September

", &'(), an aggregate amount of P&!,)!"#""# 9e contended however, that these amountswere received by him not as loans but as consideration for their :payaw: agreement and

payment for the sublease of the fishpond# 9e added that it was the private respondent whoowed him money since Salonga still had unpaid rentals for the &";month period that he

actually occupied the fishpond# Cruz also claimed that Salonga owed him an additionalP%,"""#"" arising from another purchase of fish from other areas of his leased fishpond#

<n a pre;trial conference held on 3ugust )%, &'(%, petitioner and private respondententered into the following partial stipulation of facts#

C=>RT.

Plaintiff and defendant, through their respective counsel, during the pre;trial conference,

agreed on the following stipulation of facts.

&8 That plaintiff Conrado Salonga entered into a contract of what is commonly called

as ?payawan? with defendant Lucio Cruz on the fishes contained in a fishpond whichdefendant Lucio Cruz was taing care of as lessee from the owner $r# 5emesio

6abut, with a verbal contract for the sum of P)(,"""#"" sometime in $ay &'()#

)8 That because of the necessity, defendant Lucio Cruz at that time needed money,he re@uested plaintiff Conrado Salonga to advance the money of not only P)(,"""#""

but P!,"""#"" in order that Lucio Cruz could meet his obligation with the owner of

the fishpond in @uestion, $r# 5emesio 6abut28 That the amount of P!,"""#"" as re@uested by defendant Lucio Cruz was in fact

delivered by plaintiff Conrado Salonga duly received by the defendant Lucio Cruz, asevidenced by a receipt dated $ay %, &'(), duly signed by defendant Lucio Cruz

%8 That pursuant to said contract of :payaw,: plaintiff Conrado Salonga was able toharvest the fishes contained in the fishpond administered by Lucio Cruz in 3ugust

&'()#

!8 <mmediately thereafter the aforesaid harvest thereon, they entered again on averbal agreement whereby plaintiff Conrado Salonga and defendant Lucio Cruz had

agreed that defendant Lucio Cruz will sublease and had in fact subleased the

fishpond of 5emesio 6abut to the herein plaintiff for the amount of P)(,"""#"" for a

period of one year beginning 3ugust &!, &'()#A8 That sometime on Bune &!, &'(, $ayor 5emesio 6abut, who is the owner of thefishpond, too bac the subect matter of this case from the defendant Lucio Cruz#

D8 That defendant Lucio Cruz in compliance with their verbal sublease agreement hadreceived from the plaintiff Conrado Salonga the following sums of money.

a8 P(,"""#"" on 3ugust &!, &'() as evidenced by 3nne :4: of the

Complaint# 7+h# +82



b8 The sum of P!""#"" on September %, &'(), as evidenced by 3nne :C: of the complaint 7+h# 082

c8 The sum of P,"""#"" on September &', &'() as evidenced by 3nne :-:

of the complaint 7+h# E82 and

d8 The sum of P,D!"#"" on September ", &'() as 3nne :+: of the

complaint 7+h# 98#

3t the trial, the private respondent claimed that aside from the amounts of P!,"""#""7+h# -8, P(,"""#"" 7+h# +8, P!""#"" 7+h# 08, P,"""#"" 7+h# E8 and P,D!"#"" 7+h# 98

mentioned in the partial stipulation of facts, he also delivered to the petitioner P)(,"""#"",which constituted the consideration for their :payaw: agreement# This was evidenced by a

receipt dated $ay &%, &'() mared as +hibit < and reading as follows.

$ay &%, &'()

Tinatanggap o ang halagang dalawampu?t walong libong piso 7P)(,"""#""8 bilanghalaga sa payaw nila sa ain sa sangla sa ahong bilang F( maliit at sa aputol na

sapa sa gawing may bomba# <to ay tatagal hanggang 3gosto &'()#

SE-# L>C<= CR>G

Salonga also claimed that he had paid Cruz the amount of P%,""" but the receipt of whichhad been lost and denied being indebted to the petitioner for P%,""" for the lease of other

portions of the fishpond#

0or his part, the petitioner testified that he entered into a :payaw: and sublease agreement

with the private respondent for a consideration of P)(,""" for each transaction# =ut of theP!,""" he received from the private respondent on $ay %, &'(), P)(,""" covered full

payment of their :payaw: agreement while the remaining PD,""" constituted the advancepayment for their sublease agreement# The petitioner denied having received another

amount of P)(,""" from Salonga on $ay &%, &'()# 9e contended that the instrument dated$ay &%, &'() 7+h# <8 was eecuted to evidence their :payaw: agreement and to fi its

duration# 9e was corroborated by Sonny Hiray, who testified that it was he who prepared

the $ay %, &'(), receipt of P!,"""#"", P)(,""" of which was payment for the :payaw:and the ecess of PD,"""#"" as advance for the sublease#

The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered the private respondent to pay the

former the sum of P,"!%#"" plus P&,"""#"" as litigation epenses and attorney?s fees, andthe costs# Budge +riberto ># Rosario, Br# found that the transactions between the petitioner

and the private respondent were indeed :payaw: and sublease agreements, each having aconsideration of P)(,"""#"", for a total of P!A,"""#""# Pursuant to these agreements,

Salonga paid Cruz P!,"""#"" on $ay %, &'() 7+h# -82 P(,"""#"" on 3ugust &!, &'()

7+h# +82 P!""#"" on September %, &'() 7+h# 082 P,""" on September &', &'()2 P,D!"on September ", &'() 7+h# 98 and P%,"""#"" on an unspecified date# The trial court

noted an earlier admission of the private respondent that on an unspecified date he received

the sum of PA,"""#"" from the petitioner# This amount was credited to the petitioner and

deducted from the total amount paid by the private respondent# 3s the one;year contract of sublease was pre;terminated two months short of the stipulated period, the rentals werecorrespondingly reduced#

=n appeal, the decision of the trial court was reversed# The respondent court insteadordered the petitioner to pay the private respondent the sum of P)%,'&A#"" plus P&,!""#""

as litigation epenses and attorney?s fees, on the following ustification.

+hibit :<: is very clear in its non;reference to the transaction behind +hibit :-#: Ihat only

gives the semblance that +hibit :<: is an eplanation of the transaction behind +hibit :-:



are the oral testimonies given by the defendant and his two witnesses# =n the other hand,+hibit :<: is very clear in its language# Thus, its tenor must not be clouded by any parol

evidence introduced by the defendant# 3nd with the tenor of +hibit :<: remainingunembellished, the conclusion that +hibit :-: is a mere tentative receipt becomes

untenable#

The trial court erred when it relied on the self;serving testimonies of the defendant and his

witness as against the receipts both parties presented and adopted as their own ehibits# 3ssaid before, +hibit :<: is very clear in its tenor# 3nd if it is really the intention of +hibit :<:

to eplain the contents of +hibit :-:, such manifestation or intention is not found in thefour corners of the former document#

The respondent court also found that the amounts of P!,"""#"", P(,"""#"", P!""#"",P,"""#"", P,D!"#"" and P%,"""#"" were not payments for the :payaw: and sublease

agreement but for loans etended by Salonga to Cruz# <t also accepted Salonga?s claim thatthe amount of P)(,"""#"" was delivered to the petitioner on $ay &%, &'(), as payment on

the :payaw: agreement apart from the P!,"""#"" 7+h# -8 that was paid on $ay %, &'()#9owever, it agreed that the amount of PA,"""#"" received by the private respondent from

the petitioner should be credited in favor of the latter#

The petitioner is now before this Court, raising the following issues.&# The public respondent Court of 3ppeals gravely erred in 7&8 disregarding parolevidence to +hibits :-: and :<: despite the fact that these documents fall under the

eceptions provided for in Sec# D, Rule &" of the Rules of Court and thereby in 7)8maing a sweeping conclusion that the transaction effected between the private

respondent and petitioner is one of contract of loan and not a contract of lease#

)# 3ssuming for the sae of argument that ehibits :-: and :<: evidence separate

transactions, the latter document should be disregarded, the same not having beenpleaded as a cause of action#

# Ihether or not the Stipulation of 0acts entered into by the parties herein relative

to their eecuted transactions during the hearing of their case a @uo, are binding

upon them and as well as, upon the public respondentJ=ur ruling follows.

Rule &", Sec# D, of the Revised Rules of Court provides. &

Sec# D# +vidence of Iritten 3greements# K Ihen the terms of an agreement have been

reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all such terms, and therefore, therecan be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of the

agreement other than the contents of the writing, ecept in the following cases.

a8 Ihen a mistae or imperfection of the writing or its failure to epress the true intent and

agreement of the parties, or the validity of the agreement is put in issue by the pleadings2

b8 Ihen there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing# The term :agreement: includes wills#

The reason for the rule is the presumption that when the parties have reduced theiragreement to writing they have made such writing the only repository and memorial of the

truth, and whatever is not found in the writing must be understood to have been waived orabandoned# )

The rule, however, is not applicable in the case at bar, Section D, Rule &" is predicated onthe eistence of a document embodying the terms of an agreement, but +hibit - does not

contain such an agreement# <t is only a receipt attesting to the fact that on $ay %, &'(),the petitioner received from the private respondent the amount of P!,"""# <t is not and



could have not been intended by the parties to be the sole memorial of their agreement# 3sa matter of fact, +hibit - does not even mention the transaction that gave rise to its

issuance# 3t most, +hibit - can only be considered a casual memorandum of a transactionbetween the parties and an acnowledgment of the receipt of money eecuted by the

petitioner for the private respondent?s satisfaction# 3 writing of this nature, as Iigmoreobserved is not covered by the parol evidence rule#

3 receipt K i#e# a written acnowledgment, handed by one party to the other, of the manualcustody of money or other personality K will in general fall without the line of the rule2 i#e#

it is not intended to be an eclusive memorial, and the facts may be shown irrespective of the terms of the receipt# This is because usually a receipt is merely a written admission of a

transaction independently eisting, and, lie other admissions, is not conclusive#

The :payaw: was mentioned only in +hibit <, which also declared the petitioner?s receipt of

the amount of P)(,"""#"" as consideration for the agreement# The petitioner and hiswitnesses testified to show when and under what circumstances the amount of P)(,"""#""

was received# Their testimonies do not in any way vary or contradict the terms of +hibit <#Ihile +hibit < is dated $ay &%, &'(), it does not mae any categorical declaration that the

amount of P)(,"""#"" stated therein was received by the petitioner on that same date# Thatdate may not therefore be considered conclusive as to when the amount of P)(,"""#"" was

actually received#

3 deed is not conclusive evidence of everything it may contain# 0or instance, it is not the

only evidence of the date of its eecution, nor its omission of a consideration conclusiveevidence that none passed, nor is its acnowledgment of a particular consideration an

obection to other proof of other and consistent considerations2 and, by analogy, theacnowledgment in a deed is not conclusive of the fact# %

3 distinction should be made between a statement of fact epressed in the instrument andthe terms of the contractual act# The former may be varied by parol evidence but not the

latter# ! Section D of Rule &" clearly refers to the terms of an agreement and provides that:there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of the

terms of the agreement other than the contents of the writing#:

The statement in +hibit < of the petitioner?s receipt of the P)(,"""#"" is ust a statement of fact# <t is a mere acnowledgment of the distinct act of payment made by the private

respondent# <ts reference to the amount of P)(,"""#"" as consideration of the :payaw:contract does not mae it part of the terms of their agreement# Parol evidence may

therefore be introduced to eplain +hibit <, particularly with respect to the petitioner?sreceipt of the amount of P)(,"""#"" and of the date when the said amount was received#

+ven if it were assumed that +hibits - and < are covered by the parol evidence rule, its

application by the Court of 3ppeals was improper# The record shows that no obection wasmade by the private respondent when the petitioner introduced evidence to eplain the

circumstances behind the eecution and issuance of the said instruments# The rule is thatobections to evidence must be made as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably

apparent# A <n the case of testimonial evidence, the obection must be made when the

obectionable @uestion is ased or after the answer is given if the obectionable featuresbecome apparent only by reason of such answer# D

0or failure of the private respondent to obect to the evidence introduced by the petitioner,

he is deemed to have waived the benefit of the parol evidence rule# Thus, in 3brenica v#Eonda, ( this Court held.

# # # it has been repeatedly laid down as a rule of evidence that a protest or obectionagainst the admission of any evidence must be made at the proper time, and that if not so

made it will be understood to have been waived# The proper time to mae a protest or



obection is when, from the @uestion addressed to the witness, or from the answer thereto,or from the presentation of proof, the inadmissibility of evidence is, or may be inferred#

<t is also settled that the court cannot disregard evidence which would ordinarily be

incompetent under the rules but has been rendered admissible by the failure of a party to

obect thereto# Thus.

# # # The acceptance of an incompetent witness to testify in a civil suit, as well as theallowance of improper @uestions that may be put to him while on the stand is a matterresting in the discretion of the litigant# 9e may assert his right by timely obection or he

may waive it, epressly or by silence# <n any case the option rests with him# =nce admitted,the testimony is in the case for what it is worth and the udge has no power to disregard it

for the sole reason that it could have been ecluded, if it had been obected to, nor to strieit out on its own motion# 7+mphasis supplied#8 '

Ie find that it was error for the Court of 3ppeals to disregard the parol evidence introducedby the petitioner and to conclude that the amount of P!,"""#"" received on $ay %, &'()

by the petitioner was in the nature of a loan accommodation# The Court of 3ppeals shouldhave considered the partial stipulation of facts and the testimonies of the witnesses which

sought to eplain the circumstances surrounding the eecution of +hibits - and < and their

relation to one another#Ie are satisfied that the amount of P!,"""#"" was received by the petitioner as fullpayment of their :payaw: agreement for P)(,"""#"" and the remaining PD,"""#"" as

advance rentals for their sublease agreement# The claim that the ecess of PD,"""#"" wasadvance payment of the sublease agreement is bolstered by the testimony of the private

respondent himself when during the cross eamination he testified that.

3TT6# CR>G.

1 3nd during the time you were leasing the fishpond, is it not a fact that you pay lease

rental to the defendantJ

S3L=5E3.

3 5o sir, because < have already advanced him money#1 Ihat advance money are you referring toJ

3 Thirty;0ive Thousand Pesos 7P!,"""#""8, sir# &"

<t was also error to treat the amounts received by the petitioner from 3ugust &!, &'(), toSeptember ", &'(), from the private respondent as loan accommodations when the partial

stipulation of facts clearly stated that these were payments for the sublease agreement# Thepertinent portions read.

D8 That defendant Lucio Cruz in compliance with their verbal sublease agreement hadreceived from the plaintiff Conrado Salonga the following sums of money. 7+mphasis

Supplied#8

7a8 P(,"""#"" on 3ugust &!, &'(), as evidenced by 3nne :4: of the complaint27b8 the sum of P!""#"" on September %, &'(), as evidenced by 3nne :C: of the complaint2

7c8 the sum of P,"""#"" on September &', &'(), as evidenced by 3nne :-: of the

complaint2

7d8 the sum of P,D!"#"" on September ", &'(), as 3nne :+: of the complaint2 &&

These admissions bind not only the parties but also the court, unless modified upon re@uest

before the trial to prevent manifest inustice#



Ie find, however, that the Court of 3ppeals did not act in ecess of its urisdiction when itappreciated +hibit < despite the fact that it was not pleaded as a cause of action and was

obected to by the petitioner# 3ccording to Rule &" of the Rules of Court.

Sec# !# 3mendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence# K Ihen issues not

raised by the pleadings are tried by epress or implied consent of the parties, they shall betreated in all respects, as if they had been raised in the pleadings# Such amendment of the

pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise theseissues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after udgment2 but failure

to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues# <f evidence is obected to atthe trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may

allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so freely when the presentation of themerits of the action will be subserved thereby and the obecting party fails to satisfy the

court that the admission of such evidence would preudice him in maintaining his action ordefense upon the merits# The court may grant a continuance to enable the obecting party

to meet such evidence#

<n Co Tiamco v# -iaz, &) the Supreme Court held.

# # # Ihen evidence is offered on a matter not alleged in the pleadings, the court may admit

it even against the obection of the adverse party, when the latter fails to satisfy the courtthat the admission of the evidence would preudice him in maintaining his defense upon the

merits, and the court may grant him continuance to enable him to meet the situation

created by the evidence # # #

Ihile it is true that the private respondent did not even file a motion to amend his

complaint in order that it could conform to the evidence presented, this did not prevent thecourt from rendering a valid udgment on the issues proved# 3s we held in the Co Tiamco

case.

# # # where the failure to order an amendment does not appear to have caused a surprise or

preudice to the obecting party, it may be allowed as a harmless error# Iell;nown is therule that departures from procedure may be forgiven when they do not appear to have

impaired the substantial rights of the parties#

The following computation indicates the accountability of the private respondent to the

petitioner.

+h# -, $ay %, &'() K P!,"""#""

+h# +, 3ug# &!, &'() K (,"""#""

+h# 0, Sept# %, &'() K !""#""

+h# E, Sept# &', &'() K ,"""#""

+h# 9, Sept# ", &'() K ,D!"#""

Lost receipt %,"""#""

KKKK P!%,)!"#""

Less. 7amount received by the

private respondent from the

petitioner8 7A,"""#""8

KKKK



Total amount paid by the

private respondent to

the petitioner %(,)!"#""

3mount to be paid by the private respondent to the petitioner.

&# Payaw P)(,"""#""

)# Sublease K )(,""" per annum

Less. ) months. %,AAA ),%#""

KKKK

Total amount to be paid by

the private respondent to

the petitioner P!&,%#""

Total amount to be paid

by the private respondent P!&,%#""

Total amount paid by

the private respondent %(,)!"#""

KKKK

-eficiency in the amount

paid by the private respondent P,"(%#""

3CC=R-<5EL6, the decision of the respondent Court of 3ppeals is R+H+RS+- and that of theRegional Trial Court of Laguna 300<R$+-, with the modification that the private respondent

shall pay the petitioner the sum of P,"(%#"" instead of P,"!%#"", plus costs# <t is soordered#

Documents

Evidence - Parol Evidence