Rule 130 Parole Evidence Rule

4,024sq.m. of land; one measuring 3.020sq.m. and

G.R. No. 169985 June 15, 2011 another, 1,004sq.m. in the year 1969 (this is also
referred to as the Benigna Deed).
MODESTO LEOVERAS, petitioner vs. CASIMERO
5 VALDEZ, respondent.
55 On June 21, 1996, the respondent filed a complaint for
J. Brion Annulment of Title, Reconveyance and Damages
against the petitioner, seeking the reconveyance of the
Doctrine: To avoid the operation of the parol evidence
1,004-square meter portion (disputed property), on the
10 rule, the Rules of Court allows a party to present
ground that the petitioner is entitled only to the 3,020
evidence modifying, explaining or adding to the terms of
60 square meters identified in the parties’ Agreement.
the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading,
as in this case, the failure of the written agreement to
The respondent sought the nullification of the
express the true intent and agreement of the parties.
petitioner’s titles by contesting the authenticity of the
15 The failure of the written agreement to express the true
petitioner’s documents. Particularly, the respondent
intention of the parties is either by reason of mistake,
65 assailed the Benigna Deed by presenting Benigna’s
fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, which
death certificate. The respondent argued that Benigna
nevertheless did not prevent a meeting of the minds of
could not have executed a deed, which purports to
the parties.
convey 4,024 square meters to the petitioner, in 1969
20
because Benigna already died in 1944. The RTC
Facts: On June 14, 1969, Petitioner Leoveras and
70 dismissed the complaint. The CA reversed the RTC,
Respondent Valdez acquired through sale parcels of
and gave weight to Benigna’s death certificate.
land with a measurement of 10, 564 square meters from
a certain Josefa Llamas (Josefa acquired the land
Issue: Whether or not the parole evidence rule should
25 through a deed of sale from her predecessor, Benigna
be applied
Llamas). On the same date, respondent and petitioner
75
executed an AGREEMENT alotting their portions of the
Ruling: YES. The terms provided in the AGREEMENT
subject property, to wit:
reflects the true intention of the parties.
1. Modesto Leoveras (Petitioner) - 3,020 square
The petitioner does not dispute the due execution and
30 meters
the authenticity of these documents, particularly the
2. Casimero Valdez (Respondent) - 7,544.27
80 AGREEMENT. However, he claims that since the
square meters
AGREEMENT does not reflect the true intention of the
parties, the AFFIDAVIT was subsequently executed in
On June 8, 1977, the petitioner and the respondent
order to reflect the parties’ true intention.
35 executed an AFFIDAVIT of Adverse Claim over the
subject property. The parties took possession of their
85 The petitioner’s argument calls to force the
respective portions of the subject property and declared
application of the parol evidence rule, i.e., when the
it in their name for taxation purposes. In 1996, the
terms of an agreement are reduced to writing, the
respondent asked the Register of Deeds of Lingayen,
written agreement is deemed to contain all the
40 Pangasinan on the requirements for the transfer of title
terms agreed upon and no evidence of these terms
over the portion allotted to him on the subject property.
90 can be admitted other than what is contained in the
To his surprise, the respondent learned that the
written agreement. Whatever is not found in the
petitioner had already obtained in his name two transfer
writing is understood to have been waived and
certificates of title (TCTs): one, covering an area of
abandoned.
45 3,020 square meters; and two, covering an area of
1,004 square meters (or a total of 4,024 square meters).
95 To avoid the operation of the parol evidence rule, the
Rules of Court allows a party to present evidence
The Register of Deeds furnished the respondent with
modifying, explaining or adding to the terms of the
petitioner’s documents which provide that a certain
written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading, as
50 Benigna Llamas sold to petitioner Leoveras a total of
 Rule 130 Parole Evidence Rule
in this case, the failure of the written agreement to
express the true intent and agreement of the parties.
The failure of the written agreement to express the true
intention of the
5 parties is either by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable
conduct or accident, which nevertheless did not prevent
a meeting of the minds of the parties.

At the trial, the petitioner attempted to prove, by parol

10 evidence, the alleged true intention of the parties by
presenting the Affidavit, which allegedly corrected the
mistake in the previously executed Agreement and
confirmed his ownership of the parcels of land covered
by his titles. It was the petitioner’s staunch assertion
15 that the respondent co-executed this Affidavit
supposedly to reflect the parties’ true intention.

In the present petition, however, the petitioner made a

damaging admission that the Benigna Deed is
20 fabricated, thereby completely bolstering the
respondent’s cause of action for reconveyance of the
disputed property on the ground of fraudulent
registration of title. Since the AFFIDAVIT merely reflects
what is embodied in the Benigna Deed, the petitioner’s
25 admission, coupled with the respondent’s denial of his
purported signature in the Affidavit, placed in serious
doubt the reliability of this document, supposedly the
bedrock of the petitioner’s defense. If the parties truly
intended to include in the petitioner’s share the disputed
30 property, the petitioner obviously need not go at length
of fabricating a deed of sale to support his application
for the transfer of title of his rightful portion of the
subject property. Notably, there is nothing in the Affidavit
(that supposedly corrected the mistake in the earlier
35 Agreement) that supports the petitioner’s claim that the
partition of the subject property is based on the parties’
actual possession.