LECHUGAS vs.

CA

DOCTRINE
The parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by either party to the
litigation against the other, where at least one of the parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a
party to the written instrument in question and does not base a claim on the instrument or
assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby.

FACTS
Victoria Lechugas (petitioner) bought a land from Leoncia Lasangue. After the purchase of the
land, the Deed od Absolute Sale executed by Leoncia in her favor, specified Lot No. 5456 stated
in the contract. Then the defendants (respondents) occupied Lot No. 5456. Petitioner then filed
a complaint for forcible entry with damages but it was dismissed. Petitioner appealed the case to
the CFI (RTC) of Iloilo. While the appeal for the ejectment case was pending, petitioner filed
another case in the RTC for the recovery of the possession against the same defendants involving
the same lot.

During the trial, the defendants (respondents) presented their witness in the person of Leoncia
Lasangue herself. Leoncia testified that the lot she sold to the petitioner was not Lot NO. 5456
but another lot which is Lot No. 5522. Leoncia did not know how to read and write, so the
document of sale was prepared by the petitioner. Based on Leoncia’s testimony, the lot indicated
in the Deed of Sale in favor of petitioner Lechugasa was erroneous. She did not intend to sell a
piece of land already sold by her father to the predecessors in interest of the defendants
(respondents). The petitioner objected the testimony under the parol evidence rule.

ISSUE: Whether or not parol evidence, which is the testimony of Lechuga's vendor, is admissible.
RULING
Yes. Leoncia Lasangue's testimony is admissible.
The parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by either party to the
litigation against the other, where at least one of the parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a
party to the written instrument in question and does not base a claim on the instrument or
assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby.
Parol evidence rule is not applicable where the controversy is between one of the parties to the
document and third persons. The deed of sale was executed by Leoncia Lasangue in favor of
Victoria Lechugas. The dispute over what was actually sold is between petitioner and the private
respondents. In the case at bar, through the testimony of Leoncia Lasangue, it was shown that
what she really intended to sell was Lot No. 5522 but not being able to read and write and fully
relying on the good faith of her first cousin, the petitioner, she just placed her thumbmark on a
piece of paper which petitioner told her was the document evidencing the sale of land. The deed
of sale described the disputed lot instead.