SPS. RAMON LEQUIN and VIRGINIA LEQUIN, vs. SPS.

RAYMUNDO VIZCONDE and SALOME LEQUIN VIZCONDE

G.R. No. 17710
12 October 2009, 603 SCRA 407
(PAROL EVIDENCE RULE)

DOCTRINE:
Sec. 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides for an exception of the application of the parol evidence rule such as the failure
of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. If the party claiming exception was able
to prove the same the burden of proof is transferred to the opposing party.
FACTS:

Sps. Lequin bought a property with Vizconde acting as their agent. At the same time they bought the property Sps. Vizconde also
bought a portion of the property from the same owner. They then all occupied the property with the Sps. Vizconde claiming the
portion near the road which is not the portion the bought. Since both parties wanted to occupy a portion near the road. Vizconde
“sold” a part of his supposed portion to Lequin who paid him PhP50,000.00. After sometime Lequin met with the original owner
and clarified the ownership of the lot that is when they found out that they actually bought the property they supposedly bought
from Vizconde.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the parol evidence rule shall apply.

RULING:
NO.
Contrary to the opinion of the respondents the contract they presented as evidence qualifies under Sec. 9 of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court which also provides for an exception of the application of the parol evidence rule specifically the failure of the
written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. In this case the petitioners were able to prove
their claim with absolute certainty thus transferring the burden of proof on the respondents and removing the presumption of
completeness and validity on the instrument they were trying to present. It should therefore be noted that the respondent failed to
duly prove their claims and therefore they are liable for fraud.