This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
CA This is a case wherein affidavits were presented in an agrarian case; but the affiants were not brought to court. The evidence in this case was ruled as admissible. Since substantial evidence shall suffice in agrarian cases. People v. Turco Admissibility of medical certificate in a rape case. Although the medical officer who prepared it was not presented in this case, the said certificate is still admissible. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and it not excluded by the law or these rules. (Rule 128.3) Relevance Bautista v. Aparece A public document instituted before a guerilla officer is relevant thus admissible. The mere fact that the public document was executed before a guerilla officer does not make the same irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent to the main issues raised in the pleadings. Lopez v. Heesen The expert testimony is admissible in this case bring relevant to the case. The allegations on the ultimate facts in issue involve whether the Higgins Model 51 rifle was in a dangerous and defective condition due to its negligent manufacture, in that the safety mechanism moved re4adily from safe to fire position. This is an issue, the proper understanding of which, requires knowledge or experience and cannot be determined independently merely from deductions made and inferences drawn on the basis of ordinary knowledge. State v. Ball Unexplained flight and resisting arrest even thirty days after the supposed commission of the crime is a relevant circumstance. The remoteness of the flight goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility. Statutory Rules of Exclusion ANTI WIRE TAPPING ACT Ganaan v. IAC An extension telephone is not among the prohibited device in Section 1 of the Anti Wire Tapping Act. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept or record spoken words. Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA Absent any clear showing that both parties consented to the recording, the inadmissibility of the tapes is mandatory under R.A. No. 4200 Ramirez v. CA R.A. No. 4200 applies to recordings by one of the parties to the conversation. Section 1 of the Act clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the private communication. Mamba v. Garcia For administrative proceedings, substantial evidence will suffice, while in criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. Marquez v. Desierto
Clearly. People v.An in camera inspection may be allowed. with the Sandiganbayan. Hair and fiber from clothing. there must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction. et. People v. The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection. Yatar DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can link a suspect to a crime or eliminate one from suspicion in the same principle as fingerprints are used. two exceptions apply. As we view it. Garcia The trial judge was correct in finding that it was necessary to expand the school grounds (the lot affected was occupied by squatters-complainant) when it took judicial notice of Ordinance 4566 which recites that an amount of 100k had been set aside for the construction of an additional building in an elementary school. In the case at bar. Forensic DNA evidence is helpful in proving that there was physical contact between an assailant and a victim. In short. al. there being recognized exceptions thereto. The policy as to one cannot be different from the policy as to the other. and such inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case. In respect of the alleged confession of ADELINO. as above-quoted Section 2 provides. and (2) the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. his accounts are not excepted from the protection of R. Corpus delicti is proved when the evidence on record shows that the crime prosecuted had been committed. What is existing is an investigation by the office of the Ombudsman. MARCELINA was faced with no other choice but to charge ADELINO with rape or incur the ire of her parents and social disrepute from a small community. or saliva which can be left on the victim s body or at the crime scene.. In the present case. to wit: (1) the examination of bank accounts is upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials. so far as relevant to his duty. however. . Further. Ejercito v. the evidence establishing more of an elopement rather than kidnapping or illegal detention or forcible abduction.A. the account must be clearly identified. Incidents involving sexual assault would leave biological evidence such as hair. there was no pending case in court which would warrant the opening of the bank account for inspection. since that elopement must have met with righteous indignation on the part of her parents. This policy expresses the notion that a public office is a public trust and any person who enters upon its discharge does so with the full knowledge that his life. not absolute. 1405. what the Office of the Ombudsman would wish to do is to fish for additional evidence to formally charge Amado Lagdameo. MARCELINA was confronted with a paradoxical situation as a daughter of relative tender age who could not shamefacedly admit to her parents that she had eloped and voluntarily submitted to sexual intercourse. semen. carpets. bedding. and much less rape. If properly collected from the victim. Bardaje This case also constitutes an exception to the general belief that a young girl would not expose herself to the ordeal of public trial if she were not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit who had ravished and shamed her placed behind bars. Sandiganbayan The protection afforded by the Bank Secrecy Law is. is open to public scrutiny. Gancayco 7 holds otherwise: Cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty and no reason is seen why these two classes of cases cannot be excepted from the rule making bank deposits confidential. That proof has not been met in the case at bar. As a result. Petitioner contends that since plunder is neither bribery nor dereliction of duty. blood. DNA can be compared with known samples to place the suspect at the scene of the crime. crime scene or assailant. the inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of competent jurisdiction. Philippine National Bank v. there is yet no pending litigation before any court of competent authority. suffice it to re-state that "an extrajudicial confession made by an accused shag not be sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. What Need Not be Proved Judicial Notice City of Manila v. skin tissue. or furniture could also be transferred to the victim s body during the assault.
even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court. Great reputation is observed so that their reputation will remain untainted. The appearance of the victim. (If below 7. or (apply the exemption in Prieto v. They must be alleged and proved as a fact. the record of public documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be proved by (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof. and must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.2 Rule 129 provides that courts may take judicial notice of matters ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. cannot be accorded much weight and. in the adjudication of cases pending before them. the conflicting allegations as to whether New York law or Philippine law applies to Guerrero s claims present a clear dispute on material allegations which can be resolved only by a trial on the merits. or a specific part thereof. which is more grave). by itself. CTA Sec. Certainly. The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept. Godoy Judicial notice in rape cases. Yao Kee v. Vda de Jalagat The trial court may take judicial notice of the finality of judgment in a case that was previously pending and thereafter decided by it. In this case. Arroyo As a general rule. Tabuena v. if the record is not kept in the Philippines. of the contents of other cases. it was clear that such judicial notice was without the knowledge of the opposing party. Here. People v. it will be considered as statutory rape. the testimony of the mother is. If not alleged and proven as a fact. . Prieto v. Courts could take judicial notice of previous cases to determine whether or not the case pending is a moot one or whether or not the previous ruling is applicable in the case after consideration Chief Justice Morgan. Sy-Gonzales Philippines courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws or customs. CA The Trial Court erred in taking judicial notice of the contents of records of other cases in the adjudication of the cases pending before them. People v. reasonable doubt exists. however. the doctrine of processual presumption shall apply. the Court notes that a copy of the Decision in CTA was attached to the Petition for Review filed before this Court.Baguio v. courts are not authorized to take judicial notice. and authenticated by the seal of his office. in substance. insufficient. Guerrero Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. A mature three and a half-year old can easily be mistaken for an underdeveloped seven-year old. Such official publication or copy must be accompanied. The attestation must state. following Pruna. young ladies are strictly required to act with circumspection and prudence. The mother s testimony which stated that the child was only 3 when the crime occurred cannot suffice in the absence of certificate of live birth. However this was not applied in this case.Like any other fact. is another matter. Rullepa Judicial notice can be applied sometimes in rape cases. Under Section 24 of Rule 132. with a certificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof. and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been tried or actually pending before the same judge. as object evidence.The Supreme Court took judicial notice of the fact that in rural areas. Exemption is when in the absence of objection or with the knowledge of the opposing party . (or an assumption that the foreign law is the same with the domestic law). since in this case. Arroyo). as the case may be. they must be alleged and proven. Whether the victim was below seven years old. that the copy is a correct copy of the original. Manufacturer s Hanover Trust v. BPI Savings v.
but cites the admission "out of context". . Marcoses made judicial admissions of their ownership of the subject Swiss bank deposits in their answer. and the Undertaking dated February 10. Rabanillo We agree with respondent. 1999. and 2) when it is shown that no such admission was in fact made. However. when it considered its answer as judicial admission. Pigao v. Marcos' Manifestation and Constancia dated May 5. (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain. any statement contained therein may be considered as an extrajudicial admission.which petitioners are presenting for the first time. and as such. Care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly resolved in the negative. For instance. we would be denying due process of law to respondent Judicial Admissions Lucido v. for this document to be properly considered by us. We take note of the fact that the Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan were unanimous in holding that respondents had made judicial admissions of their ownership of the Swiss funds. required its formal offer." which are not obtaining here. Court of Appeals Having been amended. Torres v. the general rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof admits of two exceptions: 1) when it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake. then the one making the admission may show that he made no "such" admission. aside from admitting the existence of the subject funds. and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of jurisdiction of the court. in order that the court may take it into consideration. it should be offered formality in evidence. respondents likewise admitted ownership thereof.(emphasis supplied) Consequently. The power of taking judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution. if a party invokes an "admission" by an adverse party. the General/Supplemental Agreements. They may only do so "in the absence of objection" and "with the knowledge of the opposing party. In their answer.We have held that: Matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge. which would have required no proof. Banal Well-settled is the rule that courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge. Neither can we consider it of public knowledge nor capable of unquestionable demonstration nor ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. CA Judicial admission can be contradicted if it is taken out of context. the original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission. Otherwise. and became merely an extrajudicial admission of which as evidence. Calupitan The original answer to the complaint which stated that the transaction was one of sale with right to repurchase was deemed as an admission of the party and was treated as a statement of real issue Pleadings superseded or amended disappear from the record as judicial admissions. This document is not among the matters the law mandatorily requires us to take judicial notice of. Sandiganbayan The Government forfeited the Swiss funds of the Marcoses. Republic v. The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that he made such an admission. Atillo v. 1999. We cannot take cognizance of this document the conditional contract to sell between Bernabe and the PHHC alleged to be the pro-forma contract used by PHHC with its applicants . it should have been presented during trial and formally offered as evidence. As provided for in Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. Mrs.Land Bank v. or that his admission was taken out of context.
.. Petitioner cannot now be allowed to reject the same. and that all proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored whether objection is interposed by a party or not. as amended." Herrera Felix v. for purposes of the truth of some alleged fact. as such. It should be borne in mind that the proceedings before the Court was by way of an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. and such admissions so hold him in the proceedings before this Court. The exception is found only in those rare instances when the trial court. Rule 129 of the Rules of Court: An admission. Heirs of Pedro Clemena v. which later passed through the CA. A judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it. and affirmed by the Court of Appeals finds particular significance when viewed together with his Motion to Allow Defendant to Deposit Rentals. Luciano Tan v. Such party is precluded from denying the same unless there is proof of palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. which said party cannot thereafter disprove. Clark Equipment Company: . CA The admissions made in a motion are judicial admissions which are binding on the party who made them. in the exercise of its discretion and because of strong reasons to support its stand. through counsel. [J]udicial admissions on issues of fact. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. the present recourse is but a mere continuation of the proceedings in the appellate court. including appeals. People . First.00. from the proceedings in the CA.. A judicial admission is an admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case. Real and Demonstrative Evidence People v. Sison v. as found by the MeTC. This is a rape case where the medical findings saw no evidence of external injuries found around the vulva or any part of the body. verbal or written. wherein petitioner stated that the rentals due on the premises in question from September 1997 up to the present amounted to P467. As categorically stated in Habecker v. as of the date of filing the Motion. He cannot thereafter contradict it. Heirs of Irene Bien Petitioners' contention that the land was never in their possession should be dismissed outright for two reasons. the petitioner thereby submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the trial court. but a review of proceedings which commenced from the trial court. made by a party in the course of proceedings in the same case. An admission made in the pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to him.That statement. both of them simple and rather obvious. does not require proof. Rodil Enterprises The petitioner s judicial admission in open court. may relieve a party from the consequences of his admission. Lacson he respondent s contention that his admissions made in his pleadings and during the hearing in the CA cannot be used in the present case as they were made in the course of a different proceeding does not hold water. petitioners' predecessor Pedro Clemeña y Zurbano alleged in his answer that the land declared in TD 5299 was in his exclusive possession. The respondent is bound by the judicial admissions he made in the CA.People v.took on the character of a judicial admission contemplated in Section 4. including those made by counsel on behalf of a client during a trial. This is not a new trial.500.. By filing the said motion. insofar as it confirmed the allegation in the complaint that petitioners' predecessor had retained possession of the land in question. are binding "for the purpose of the case . Bardaje Physical evidence is of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than all witness put together.
Carrascoso The utterance of the purser regarding his entry in the notebook was spontaneous. photographing. Seiler v. set down by handwriting. People v. Here. typewriting. a commentator on the Rules of Court. and prosecution could present its proof in any order it chose. Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually executed. Adamczuck v. not necessarily the photographer. and it was not unfair or prejudicial to permit transcript of testimony given before the subcommittee to be introduced after chief counsel had testified. words. where and under what circumstances the photograph was taken. other than the photographer himself. According to the Court. not what the transcript contained. Lucas Film Drawings can be considered as writings under the Best Evidence Rule. all of the sheets so written on are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as such without accounting for the non-production of the others. in order to be admissible must be made a part of some qualified person s testimony. Holloway A map or photograph. produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath. the testimony by chief counsel of the senatorial committee as to what witnesses had sworn to was not barred under the best evidence rule. mechanical or electronic recording. and the photograph accurately portray the subject or subjects illustrated. or their equivalent. People v. In prosecution for perjured testimony given before the Senate committee. Best Evidence Rule Air France v. Photostatting.Photographs when presented in evidence must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances which they were produced. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed. there was no attempt to prove the contents of a writing. and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. In other words. or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution. Someone must stand forth as its testimonial sponsor. including the signature of the party to be charged thereby. Tandoy The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. words or numbers but of their equivalent. or other forms of data compilation. Tatum The quantum of authentication required by the courts before a photograph may be admissible in evidence was stated thus: that some witness. IT MUST BE VERIFIED. It thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. Meyers v. The issue was what Lamarre had said. and related to the circumstances of the ouster incident. Tan The Court said that the admissibility of duplicates or triplicates has long been a settled question. US The best evidence rule applies only when contents of a writing are to be proved which does not obtain in the case at bar. Seiler s drawings consist not of letters. The photograph need only be sufficiently accurate to be helpful to the court and the jury. magnetic impulse. It quoted with approval the opinion of Moran. It forms part of the res gestae. Since the aforesaid marked money . the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. Seiler s drawings were writings within the meaning of Rule 1001 (1) which defined writings and records as letters. or exists. This can be proved by other competent witness. printing. such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of the pen which made the surface or exposed the impression. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original. When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet. State . be able to give some indication as to when. since both methods of proving the perjury were permissible. though counsel testified early in protracted trial and transcript was introduced near its close. or numbers. It is not within the Best Evidence Rule as the entry was made outside the Philippines by the employee of Air France.
where delivery is necessary (2) that it has been lost or destroyed. Said requisites have been complied with. other substitutionary evidence. in order that they may find. De Corpus. As to the second issue. The company failed to make a preliminary showing as to the difficulty or impossibility attending the production of the records in court and their examination and analysis as evidence by the court Villa Rey Transit v. whether or not the crime of falsification was actually committed. but also by the disinterested testimony of Pablo Albeza. with only a copy of the said original in view. in order for said rule to be applied. like a Xerox copy thereof. it is improper to conclude.The plaintiff declared that the original deed of sale signed by defendant Tiburcia was lost during the war. Villarama has practically admitted the 2nd and 4th. As to the 3rd. c. he admitted their previous existence in the files of VRTI and had even seen some of them.) opponent s possession of the original.was presented by the prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents. Gregorio Best Evidence in Criminal Cases. That rule cannot be applied in this case because the voluminous character of the records on which the accountant s reports were based was not duly established. Reyes The general rules regarding the admissibility of evidence are applicable to cases of libel or slander.) satisfactory proof of its existence. the rule of procedure which requires the production of the best evidence is applicable to the present case. is therefore admissible without the need of accounting for the original. Ferrer The requisites for the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original is in the custody of the adverse party are: a. However. Fiscal of Pampanga v. reports or the like. This being so. and by the environmental facts disclosed by the evidence. it is not necessary. even the existence of such original may be doubted. Moreover. that there has been a falsification of a document which was neither found nor exhibited. Brabangco How a lost original document may be proved. Enriquez The writing itself must be produced unless it has been lost or destroyed in which case. and its translation. it must be shown by the party offering secondary evidence (1) that the document was duly executed and delivered. pursuant to the evidence produced at trial. the records and accounts should be made accessible to the adverse party so that the correctness of the summary may be tested on cross-examination. because. the original writings need not be produced. Compania Maritima v. or falsified. The newspaper itself is the best evidence of an article published in it. books of accounts. The execution or delivery of the document maybe . Vda. d. constitute the best evidence of the libel charged. in the absence of the original document. v. As to the 1st. he said that the originals were missing and that VRTI was no longer in possession of the same.In a criminal case for the falsification of a document. it is indispensable that the judges and the courts have before them the document alleged to have been simulated.) failure or refusal of opponent to produce the original in court. Allied Free Workers The company argues that the accountant s (auditor s) reports are admissible in evidence because of the rule that when the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole. Michael & Co. The record of the present case will bear that its existence was convincingly proven not only by the testimony of Heraclea Vda. that the witness should be able to testify with verbal accuracy to its contents. it is not necessary for a party seeking to introduce secondary evidence to show that the original is in the actual possession of the adversary. De Corpus v. The copies of the weekly where the libelous article was published. before its contents may be proved by other evidence. in such a case. b.) reasonable notice to opponent to produce the original. US v. After proper proof of the due execution & delivery of the instrument & its loss or destruction. in order to admit evidence of the contents of a lost instrument. it is sufficient if they are able to state it in substance. oral evidence may be given of its contents by any person who signed the document. What applies is the general rule that an audit made by or the testimony of a private auditor is inadmissible in evidence as proof of the original records. or who read it. the surviving widow. It is enough that the circumstances are such as to indicate that the writing is in his possession or under his control. counterfeited.
. but merely goes to show that the parties have exercised their right to change or abrogate the same. or to make a new and independent contract. contents although this order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court. If it was in fact subsequent and is otherwise unobjectionable it may be proved and enforced. He clearly admitted to discarding the paid checks to cover up his misdeed. BPI v. For. the parole evidence does not in anyway deny that the original agreement of he parties which the writing purports to express. loss. It makes no difference how soon after the execution of the written contract the parol one was made. issued by a public officer in custody thereof. changes or even altogether abrogating the Contract of Sale that reduced their agreement into writing. Tenebro v. saw it and recognized the signatures.e. But prior to the introduction of such secondary evidence. the original checks have already been destroyed or cannot be produced in court. The marriage contract plainly indicates that a marriage was celebrated between petitioner and Villareyes on November 10. as the original writing itself must be produced in court. CASA proved the loss or destruction of the original checks through the Affidavit of the one person who knew of that fact -. execution. 1986. The fact that the failure of the agreement to contain the terms of the agreement among the parties has been put in issue in this case and has been specifically pleaded. by the person before whom its execution was acknowledged. De Vera v. positive and convincing evidence. modifies. Consolidated Bank v. who executed it. or by any person who was present and saw it executed and delivered or who. The fact that Enriquez failed to comply with a condition precedent (i. Under the best evidence rule as applied to documentary evidence like the checks in question. In such a situation. the action to foreclose the REM is premature. Casa Montessori Internationale Forgery "cannot be presumed. the TC merely ruled in the existence and dye execution of the alleged deed of sale. Mariano The Supreme Court held that parole evidence can be admitted to determine the true intent of the parties in cases where there is a clear subsequent agreement that adds. For if there is and this claim is put in issue in the pleadings the same may be subject to parole evidence. the construction of roads) embodied in the contract of sale. without bad faith on the part of the offeror.established by the person or persons. CA The certified copy of the marriage contract. Canuto v. Aguilar Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents were actually lost or destroyed. or by a person to whom the parties to the instruments have previously confessed the execution thereof. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence. However. was admissible as the best evidence of its contents. secondary evidence like microfilm copies may be introduced in court. no secondary or substitutionary evidence may inceptively be introduced. The destruction of the instrument may be proved by any person knowing the fact." It must be established by clear. Ramos The RTC erred in admitting parole evidence to prove a contemporaneous oral agreement among between the parties relative to the construction of roads. The sufficiency of proof for the admission of an alleged lost deed lies within the judicial discretion of the TC.Yabut. For if the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing it is considered to contain all the terms of agreement between the parties. the proponent must establish the former existence of the instrument. In the case at bar. But when. secondary evidence may be produced. after its execution and delivery. Del Monte Motor Works -no copy Parole Evidence Rule Enriquez v. this rule will only hold true if there is no allegation that the agreement does not express the true intent of the parties. and it should be accorded the full faith and credence given to public documents.Without bad faith on its part.
but such evidence may be received. would refund the amount of the check even if there was delay in its presentation. Serrano The Supreme Court held that in the case at bar the parole evidence presented was meant to show that no contract of indorsement ever existed. Land Settlement v. The tender of money of Canuto within that time period is considered sufficient to prove that she intends to repurchase her parcel of land from Mariano. Hence. Garcia Plantation The Supreme Court held that failure of the Garcia spouses to comply with the condition precedent stated in the letter which is the payment of a substantial downpayment means that the extension for payment is deemed not made.The extension of the period of repurchase is upheld in this case. as the oral agreement between Canuto and Mariano changed the earlier agreed due date of December 4. Gonzales should have procured sugar somewhere else and delivered such to Yu Tek & Co. There was no express obligation assumed by Seeto that he. Parol evidence on the obligations of an indorser would therefore be admissible. alter. as his crop was totally destroyed he cannot comply with such an agreement. Woodhouse v. that they never mutually agreed to enter into such contract. Maulini v. under the Negotiable Instruments Law. as an indorser. the liability of a general indorser is that he will pay the amount thereof to the holder. modify. to prove the representations or inducements. in the absence of accident. in compliance with their agreement. with which or by which he secured the other party's consent thereto. to construe such obligation there is no need to admit parole evidence to explain. modify or alter the terms of agreement between the parties. Halili The act or statement of the Woodhouse was not sought to be introduced to change or alter the terms of the agreement. therefore. or part of the consideration therefor. and not to vary. but to prove how he induced Halili to enter into it. Lizzaraga Cruz The case involves the enforcement of an independent or collateral agreement which constituted an inducement to the making of the sale. to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parole agreement between the parties. or contradict the terms of an agreement which is admitted to have existed between the parties but to deny there was ever an agreement between the parties. the agreement does not stipulate that sugar to be delivered should come solely from Gonzales plantation. Robles v. to wipe out all apparent relations between the parties. PNB v. 1914 to December 31. However. The assurances are but merely expressions of the obligations of the indorser as prescribed in Section 66 of said law. But. The evidence was not offered to vary. regardless of whether or not the written agreement contains reference to such collateral agreement. and that there existed a consideration upon which an agreement can be founded. in case it is dishonored. Gonzales The RTC erred in ruling that the sugar to be delivered should come from Gonzales hacienda. The general rule is that extrinsic evidence is inadmissible either to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract. as genum never perishes Gonzales should have procured the sugar sought to be delivered. It is clear in the agreement that the sugar referred to is generic. Seeto The supposed assurances of refund in case of dishonor are precisely the ordinary obligations of an indorser. that the minds of the parties never met on the terms of such contract. These are expressly excluded. 1914. The execution of a contract in writing is deemed to supersede all oral negotiation or stipulations concerning its terms and the subject-matter which preceded the execution of the instrument. from the parol evidence rule. The agreement in itself is sufficient to represent the true intent of the parties. fraud or mistake of fact. Therefore. the collection for sum of money is not premature as there was no extension for payment of the balance. alter or contradict the terms of a relation between the parties. change. or fraud. Yu Tek v. The rule excluding parole evidence to vary or contradict writings of parties does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of extrinsic evidence. the obligation is deemed due and demandable. .
notwithstanding the fact that it deals with related matters. It is not and could not have been intended by the parties to be the sole memorial of their agreement. Such evidence may be received. the oral agreement is also complete in itself. Inciong v. is not covered by the Parol Evidence Rule. the receipt does not even mention the transaction that gave rise to its issuance.While parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of written contracts. However. A writing of this nature. The deed of sale was executed by Lasangue in favor of Lechugas. In this case. Inciong can thus. it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in writing. Ortanez v.00 only. the deed of conveyance is complete in itself. However. and is not bound by the parol evidence rule. CA Inciong can adduce parol evidence to prove a contemporaneous agreement that was the inducing and moving cause of the written contract. between the parties and their successors-in-interest. Lasangue is a stranger to the dispute. but the receipt only attested to the fact that Cruz received P35. People -no copy . having come from an interested party and based solely on human memory which is fleeting and inaccurate. the receipt can only be considered a casual memorandum of a transaction between the parties and an acknowledgement of the receipt of money executed by Cruz for Salonga s satisfaction. The rule is not applicable where the controversy is between one of the parties to the document and third persons. contradict or defeat the operation of a valid contract. Lapu Lapu Foundation v. The verbal contract which the plaintiff has established in this case is therefore clearly independent of the main contract of conveyance. The parole evidence rule does not specify that the written agreement be a public document. it is recognized that the rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict a writing does not extend so far as to preclude the admission of extrinsic evidence to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parol agreements between the parties. unless there has been fraud or mistake Baluyot v. CA The Rules on Evidence provides that when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing. Cruz v. The rule is predicated on the existence of a document embodying the terms of an agreement. The disputed deed of conveyance purports to transfer to Hermanos certain properties. In the present case. Hence. and evidence of such verbal contract is admissible. and it is collateral to the written contract.000. the oral testimony of Inocentes concerning the alleged existence of the oral conditions is unreliable. it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be. At most.However. The rule that a preliminary or contemporaneous oral agreement is not admissible to vary a written contract refers to the obligation expressed in the written agreement. As a matter of fact. the dispute over what was actually sold is between Lechugas and the Lozas. nothing is said concerning Robles rights in the hacienda which he acquired by lease or the improvements placed thereon.000 from Salonga. This. prove by alleging fraud that he and his co-makers agreed to a loan of P5. It does not apply to matters of consideration or inducement. CA Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary. However. no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. CA The parole evidence is not applicable in the case at bar. Inciong failed to do because his testimony was uncorroborated. Lechugas v. fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence. regardless of whether or not the written agreement contains any reference to such collateral agreement. CA Lechugas reliance on the parol evidence rule is misplaced.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.