Nuffnang

Case Digest - Remedial Law, Parol Evidence

Lechugas vs. CA

GRN L-39972 & L-40300

August 6, 1986

FACTS:

Petitioner filed an unlawful entry case against private respondent “the Loza’s”. Another case was filed for recovery and possession of the same property and both cases was tried jointly. Petitioner testified that she bought the land from Lasangue in 1950. Private respondent contended that the same land in question was bought by their father from the father of petitioner in 1941. Plaintiff’s vendor testified for the defendant stating that she sold the south part of the land which is lot 5522 not lot 5456 which plaintiff claims.

IISUE:

Whether or not the court of appeals erred in considering, parol evidence over the objection of petitioner.

RULING:

The appellate court acted correctly in upholding the trial court’s action in admitting the testimony of Leoncia. Petitioner alleges that lot 5522 was sold to her by Leonora, not Leoncia, who was never presented as witness in any proceeding in the lower court… the parol evidence rule does not apply and may not properly be involved by either party to litigation against the other, where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or a privy of a party to a written instrument in the question and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby.

The rule is not applicable where the controversy is between one of the parties to the document and third persons. Through the testimony of Leoncia, it was shown that what she really intended to sell is lot 5522 but not being able to read and write and fully relying on the good faith of her cousin, petitioner, she just placed her thumb mark on a piece of paper.

No comments: