G.R. No.

96405 June 26, 1996

BALDOMERO
INCIONG,
JR.,
petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, respondents.
Facts:
A certain Campos persuaded the petitioner to contribute in the falcata logs operation
business together with one Naybe. A promissory note in the amount of P50,000.00 was signed by
Inciong with Rene C. Naybe and Gregorio D. Pantanosas on February 3, 1983, holding
themselves jointly and severally liable to private respondent Philippine Bank of
Communications, Cagayan de Oro City branch. It was due on May 5, 1983.
Said due date expired without the promissors having paid their obligation. Two demands
for payment was made via telegram but was ignored. The final one was delivered via mail but
was ignored as well. Hence, a complaint for collection of the sum was made. Defendant Naybe
however had gone to Saudi Arabia.
Accordingly, it was by fraud that he was made a co-maker of a P 50,000 note. Their
agreement was that he would bind himself for P 5,000 only. The amount of P 50,000 however
clearly appears directly below the admitted signature of the petitioner in the promissory note.
Pantanosas however, a co-maker, also avers that they were induced by fraud and Campos
was the one who increased the amount to P 50,000 in the paper.
Petitioner avers that since the promissory note "is not a public deed with the formalities
prescribed by law but . . . a mere commercial paper which does not bear the signature of . . .
attesting witnesses," parol evidence may "overcome" the contents of the promissory note
Issue: Whether or not parol evidence may overcome the contents of the promissory note.
Held. No. In fact, the first paragraph of the parol evidence rules is that When the terms of an
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon
and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms
other than the contents of the written agreement.
For the parol evidence rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form,
or be signed by both parties. As a general rule, bills, notes and other instruments of a similar
nature are not subject to be varied or contradicted by parol or extrinsic evidence.
Note: Fact that co-makers were released would not release him. The creditor may choose among
solidary debtors who he may pursue.