Parol Evidence

Parol Evidence

Remalante vs. Tibe

158 SCRA 138

Facts: Disputed in this case is the ownership of six (6) parcels of land. The trial court awarded three (3) parcels to petitioner and the other three (3) to private respondent, but the Court of Appeals held otherwise and awarded all six (6) to private respondent. Hence the instant petition.

Petitioner strongly insists upon the correctness of the holding of the trial court that private respondent was a buyer in bad faith of property that was the subject of a double sale. He disagrees with the findings of the Court of Appeals that the subsequent affidavits of transfer (Exhibits I, K and M) allegedly signed by Cornelia Tibe in favor of Paciano Remalante were vitiated with substantial error and fraud.

He invokes the parol evidence rule (which petitioner erroneously referred to as the "best evidence rule") that the affidavits of transfer constitute conclusive evidence that he is the absolute owner of the three parcels of land.

Issue:  Whether or not parol evidence be appreciated in the instant case.

Held: In the case at bar, the parol evidence rule finds no application because, precisely, the validity of the affidavits of transfer (Exhibits I-3, K and M) is the very fact in dispute, the action instituted in the court below being one for the annulment of the documents of transfer. To adopt petitioner's theory would render nugatory the remedy founded on the basic rule in the law on contracts that "a contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud is voidable" (Art. 1330, Civil Code).