You are on page 1of 32

AMADO T.

GURANGO
and ESTER GURANGO,
Petitioners,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLAT
COURT
and EDWARD L. FERREIR
Respondents.
G.R. No. 75290
November 4, 1992
Ponente: NOCON,J.

Petition for Review


on Certiorari
Annul & set aside decision dated March
12, 1986.
Intermediate Appellate Court reversed
decision of Trial Court which ordered
petitioners (Spouses Amado & Ester
Gurango) to pay private respondent
Edward Ferreira P36,000 (price of the
car) + P5,000 (attorneys fees) and
denied Motion for Reconsideration
dated July 11, 1986.

FACTS

January 26, 1977


Respondent Edwardo Ferreira sold to Petitioner Amado Gurango, 1
booklet of RAFFLE TICKETS for P500 (100pc) as fund raising project
of Makati Jaycees.

Raffle: held in the evening of April


14, 1977 at Manila Peninsula
Hotel
Ticket #162574 under the name
of ARMADO BOYET
GURANGO, minor son of
Petitioner won TOYOTA
CAROLLA car.

PETITIONER CLAIMED:

April 14, 1977


Issued check #00730 amount of P300
dated April 12, 1977 as payment of
60 raffle tickets

Petitioner instructed his cashier, Miriam


Burgo, to fill up the stubs of 100 tickets with
his name and of his family
Messenger collected tickets & payments

April 15, 1977 (TELEPHONE


CONVERSATION) after the Raffle

I will pay the


remaining
balance for the
40 tickets worth
P200.
Did any of my
tickets won the
car?

No Jaycee
had won any
car in the
said raffle.

Respondent visited
Petitioner
in his office

Petitioner: Did any of my tickets won


a car?
Respondent: No. Can I have the

Petitioner: I am still willing to honor


our previous agreement, here is the
check (P200 dated April 30, 1977)

Respondent: No, the money I advanced will be


charged against my company & need I only
the stubs to justify the expenses

Petitioner busy finishing his ITR,


handed all the stubs.
Respondent took only 40 stubs &
prepared an agreement in a
yellow paper.

14 April 1977
This is a mutual agreement between Mads Gurango & Ed Ferreira that they bought a
booklet of Raffle Tickets of Makati JC worth P500.00. All the stubs in our possessions
remains our share and any number happened to win in the raffle corresponding
to the stub numbers each one of us is holding will own the prize solely w/o the

other party claims co-ownership , even that the name printed in the such
raffle stubs is in the name of one party or any other person.
(SGD.)
MADS GURANGO

(SGD.)
EDWARD L. FERREIRA

Further any holder of the winning stub shall be printed as the sole
owner, even though it was in other's name .

winner and

This is a Gentlemen and Jayceely agreement that both of us will stick to this simple
and binding agreement.
(SGD.)
(SGD.)
MADS GURANGO

EDWARD L. FERREIRA

April 18, 1977


Petitioner saw in Daily
Express newspaper
that ticket # 162574
won at Toyota car &
was surprised that
winning stubs was
among taken by
Respondent.

Petitioner
Confronted
Respondent.

August 25, 1977

Respondent filed complaint for


damages w/ CFI of Rizal Branch 10
Civil Case # 27163

Respondent CLAIMED:

April 12,
1977
I will be buying
only 60 tickets & I
will return 40
tickets since I need
money to pay
Income tax.

Lets just agree


that 40
remaining
tickets will be
appropriated to
me.

Before the raffle draw, noticing that all tickets


were in the name of the Petitioner and his
family, Petitioner and Respondent entered
into an agreement signed on April 14, 1977.

After the raffle draw, Petitioner and Respondent


met at Metro Jaycee Clubhouse. Respondent
asked Petitioner that agreement be complied.
Petitioner refused & wrote a letter to Makati

Car was awarded to Petitioners


son.
Subsequent demands to comply
were IGNORED.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

DISMISS for failure to establish Cause of


Action

Counterclaim:
Respondent ORDERED TO pay Petitioner P10,000 moral
damages, P2,500 attorneys fees and expenses of
litigation.

Intermediate Appellate Court


Reversed Decision of Trial Court
(1) Agreement prepared & signed on April 14,
1977, BEFORE THE RAFFLE.

Agreement is the most PRACTICAL


COVENANT for their mutual protection
define the raffle, considering business
background.
(2) Decision of Trial Court REVERSED

ISSUE:
WON the agreement
between Petitioner &
Respondent on
April 14, 1977
VALID?

HELD:
VALID. No reversible
Error.
GR: Only legal reviewable by IAC on
appeals.
EXPN: Conflict in factual findings of
CA & Trial Court.

Section 9, Rule 130:


Sec. 9. Evidence of written agreements. When the
terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is
to be considered as containing all such terms, and,
therefore, there can be, between the party and their
successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of the
agreement other than the contents of the writing,
except in the following cases:
(a) Where a mistake or imperfection of the writing, or its
failure to express the true intent and agreement of the
parties, or the validity if the agreement is put in issue by
the pleading;
(b) When there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing.

when the parties have reduced their


agreement in writing, the contents of said
agreement are rendered CONCLUSIVE
upon the parties and evidence aliundeis
inadmissible to change a valid and
enforceable agreement embodied in a
document.
"The mistake contemplated as an
exception to the parol evidence rule is
one which is a mistake of fact MUTUAL
to the parties, NOT PRESENT IN
THE CASE

In view of the parties' conflicting


claims regarding the true nature
of the agreement executed by
them, Court found that the
version of the private
respondent more credible for
the terms of said agreement are
clear and require no room for
interpretation since the intention
of the parties, as expressly
specified in said agreement, do
not contradict each other.

The fact that the agreement was


prepared and written by petitioner
himself further indicated that said
agreement was entered into by the
parties freely and voluntarily which
renders petitioners' claim of fraud in
the execution of the agreement
unbelievable.
Being the author of the agreement,
petitioner is presumed to have actual
knowledge of the true intent of the
parties and the surrounding
circumstance that attended the
preparation of the document in question
including the date when said agreement
was executed.

If it is true that the date if


execution was on April 15,
1977, petitioner should have
written said date in the
agreement and not April 14,
1977 considering that one
does not usually forget a date
that has a special significance
to him as alleged by the
petitioner.
In the instant case, it is
highly improbable that
petitioner's consent was