G.R. No.

L-39972 & L-40300 August 6, 1986

VICTORIA LECHUGAS, petitioner,

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MARINA LOZA, SALVADOR LOZA, ISIDRO LOZA,
CARMELITA LOZA, DAVID LOZA, AMPARO LOZA, ERLINDA LOZA and
ALEJANDRA LOZA, respondents.

FACTS:

Victoria Lechugas (petitioner) bought a land from a certain Leoncia Lasangue.

After the purchase of the land, the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Leoncia
Lasangue in her favor specified a certain land Lot No. 5456 stated in the contract. When
the defendants (respondents) occupied Lot No. 5456, petitioner filed a complaint for
forcible entry with damages (ejectment case) against the defendants but it was
dismissed. Petitioner appealed the case to the CFI (now RTC) of Iloilo.

While the appeal for the ejectment case was pending, petitioner filed another
case in the RTC for the recovery of possession against the same defendants
involving the same Lot No. 5456. During the trial, the defendants presented their star
witness in the person of Leoncia Lasangue herself.

Leoncia Lasangue testified during the trial. That according to her, the lot that she
sold to the petitioner was not Lot No. 5456 but another lot, Lot 5522. Lasangue did not
know how to read and write, so the document of sale was prepared by the petitioner,
thereafter, the former was made to sign it. Based on her testimony, the lot indicated in
the Deed of Sale which she sold to petitioner was erroneous. It was clear that she did
not intend to sell a piece of land already sold by her father to the predecessor-in-
interest of the defendants (respondents). This was objected by the petitioner under the
Parole Evidence Rule.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the Parole Evidence Rule apply in this case

HELD:

No. The Parole Evidence Rule will not apply in this case because it is Leoncia
Lasangue who is one of the parties to the subject Deed of Sale not the defendants. The
defendants in the case were not parties to the Deed of Sale executed between Leoncia
Lasange and petitioner Lechugas.

The petitioner's reliance on the parol evidence rule is misplaced. The 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 and to be the subject of Exhibit A 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.