Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 360 views

    Policarpio V CA

    Uploaded by

    BenBulac
    The Supreme Court ruled that the parol evidence rule did not apply in this case where there were two conflicting testimonies regarding the terms of the contract to sell and deed of absolute sale between the parties. While written agreements generally contain all terms agreed upon, the parties here introduced conflicting evidence on the nature of the documents without objection. This reduced the issue to the credibility of witnesses, which the trial court had to consider given the admission of conflicting testimonies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Policarpio V CA

    Uploaded by

    BenBulac
    360 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the parol evidence rule did not apply in this case where there were two conflicting testimonies regarding the terms of the contract to sell and deed of absolute sale between the parties. While written agreements generally contain all terms agreed upon, the parties here introduced conflicting evidence on the nature of the documents without objection. This reduced the issue to the credibility of witnesses, which the trial court had to consider given the admission of conflicting testimonies.

    Original Description:

    policarpio vs ca

    Original Title

    57. Policarpio v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the parol evidence rule did not apply in this case where there were two conflicting testimonies regarding the terms of the contract to sell and deed of absolute sale between the parties. While written agreements generally contain all terms agreed upon, the parties here introduced conflicting evidence on the nature of the documents without objection. This reduced the issue to the credibility of witnesses, which the trial court had to consider given the admission of conflicting testimonies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    360 views1 page

    Policarpio V CA

    Uploaded by

    BenBulac
    The Supreme Court ruled that the parol evidence rule did not apply in this case where there were two conflicting testimonies regarding the terms of the contract to sell and deed of absolute sale between the parties. While written agreements generally contain all terms agreed upon, the parties here introduced conflicting evidence on the nature of the documents without objection. This reduced the issue to the credibility of witnesses, which the trial court had to consider given the admission of conflicting testimonies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Policarpio v.

    CA o The balance of the purchase price was not paid on or


    G.R. No. 94563 | March 5, 1991 before the first week of December 1983
    Petitioner: Meynardo and Lourdes Policarpio o Capital gains tax and documentary stamps for the sale of
    Respondents: CA, Evelyn, Romulo and Clemente Catabas the property were not paid by Sps. Catabas
    o That they allowed Sps. Catabas to occupy the property as
    DOCTRINE they agreed to new terms.
    - RTC ruled in favor of Sps. Catabas. CA reversed.
    Sec. 9. Evidence of written agreements. – 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 ISSUE:
    successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of
    the written agreement. - W/N Parol Evidence rule applies to this case where there are two
    conflicting testimonies.
    FACTS

    - Spouses Catabas and Spouses Policarpio executed a Contract to


    Sell where the former bought a residential lot from the latter. RULING & RATIO
    o 10K was paid upon signing and the balance of 260K to be
    paid from the proceeds of the Sps. Catabas’s PAG-IBIG - NO
    loan o The parties' conflicting evidence centers on the Contract to
    o The contract provided that failure on the part of the buyers Sell and Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the parties on
    to pay the balance on December will automatically annul April 9, 1984.
    the contract and the sellers will immediately return the  The parties introduced conflicting testimonies
    downpayment. regarding the true nature of the subject
    - Sps. Catabas were unable to pay such balance on December. documents.
    o However, sps. Policarpio did not return the downpayment.  This, in effect results in the non-application of the
    o Sps. Catabas continued to make partial payments which Parol Evidence Rule under Section 9, Rule 130 of
    were received. the Rules of Court
    - Subsequently, the parties executed a deed of absolute sale over o Section 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
    the subject property.  Sec. 9. Evidence of written agreements. – When
    o Thereafter, Sps. Policarpio delivered physical possession the terms of an agreement have been reduced to
    of the property. writing, it is considered as containing all the terms
    - Sps. Catabas filed a case for specific performance and damages agreed upon and there can be between the
    against Sps. Policarpio parties and their successors in interest, no
    o They claimed that in view of the fact that their PAG-IBIG evidence of such terms other than the contents of
    loan was not processed on time without fault on their part, the written agreement.
    the parties executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the o The record shows that neither of the parties objected to
    same property. the different testimonies.
    o That Sps. Policarpio refused to deliver and transfer the title  Hence, the trial court had no option but to admit
    of the property to the private respondents. these conflicting testimonies
    - Sps. Policarpio claims that the Contract to Sell was automatically  The issue was, therefore, reduced to the
    cancelled when the private respondents violated the terms of the credibility of witnesses.
    contract:

    You might also like