TOPIC: Parole Evidence Rule

TITLE: Philippine National Railways vs. CFI of Albay

CITATION: 83 SCRA 569 (1978)

QUESTION:
M filed a complaint against P to annul a supposed conditional donation of two parcels of land due to non-
fulfillment of the five conditions of the donation. No deed of donation or actionable document was
annexed to the complaint. At the hearing, M was asked to identify a deed of donation presented which
shows no condition. M was asked to tell the court the promise of P with respect to the execution of the
deed of donation but the counsel P objected for the counsel is trying to elicit oral evidence which is
violative of the parole evidence rule. Is the counsel of P correct?

ANSWER:
Yes.

Section 7 of Rule 130 requires that in order that parole or extrinsic evidence may be admitted to vary the
terms of the writing, the mistake or imperfection thereof or its failure to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties should be put in issue by the pleadings.

In the instant case, the plaintiffs did not expressly plead that the deed of donation was incomplete or that
its execution was vitiated by mistake or that it did not reflect the intention of the donor and the donee.
Having failed to plead any of the exceptions under the parole evidence rule, contents of the writing
constitute the sole repository of the terms of the agreement between the parties.