5.

BOUGH V CANTIVEROS (HIGHLIGHT: EVIDENCE: DOCUMENT: PAROLE EVIDENCE)

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT OF RTC LEYTE

FACTS:

 Matilde Cantiveros is reputed to be the richest resident of the municipality

of Carigara, Leyte. She was the owner of various parcels of realty of the
value of thirty thousand pesos or more. (YAMANIN SI ANTE)

 Matilde Cantiveros and her husband Jose Vasquez, signed a marital

contract of separation. (BOTH PALA SILA YAMANIN NI ANGKOL PERO WALA
EH YOU CAN’T HAVE IT OL TALAGA SO AYON SEPARATION CASE SILA NI
ANGKOL JOSE)

 At this time there lived with Matilde Cantiveros, Basilia Hanopol, a cousin
and protegé since childhood, who was married to Gustavus Bough. For this
reason, Gustavus Bough was regarded by Matilde Cantiveros with great
confidence, even as her child.

 Through the influence of Gustavus Bough, who brought a story to Matilde

Cantiveros that her husband Jose Vasquez was in town and might contest
the contract for the separation of the conjugal property, Matilde Cantiveros
was induced to sign a fictitious contract of sale of all her property to Basilia
Bough.

(NALOKO NA. BIDABIDA DIN SI GUSTAVUS EH. HE SUGGESTED THAT

MATILDE FICTICIOUSLY SELL ALL HER PROPERTIES TO BASILIA (SI PROTEGE
PINSAN) PARA DI MASALI DIVIDE YUNG PROPERTY SA SEPARATION NILA.
GG KASI MAS MAYAMAN SI MATILDE THAN JOSE)

 There were 63 parcels of land ~sold~ 10k in total in the fictitious sale of her
properties. But the actual value of all 63 parcels is 30k+

(OH DIBA KLARONG KLARO NA CHARARAT CONTRACT NILA)

 In order to reassure Cantiveros that they would not take advantage of the
fictitious sale, Gustavus Bough and Basilia Bough prepared and signed
another document, which is a donation by them to Cantiveros of all the
 property to be effective in case of the death of themselves and their
children before the death of Cantiveros. She has remained in possession
of the property. (KUNWARI BINENTA SA KANILA TAPOS IDO-DONATE DIN
NILA PABALIK. MGA CHARARAT)

 Petitioners Basilia Bough and Gustavus Bough sought to have themselves

put in possession of the property coveredby the dead of sale quoted in the
complaint, and to require the defendant Matilde Cantiveros to pay them
damages and costs. Cantiveros answered with a general denial and a
special defense in which she asked that judgment be rendered declaring
the contract of sale made between herself and Basilia Bough null. The
plaintiffs, thereupon, denied under oath the genuineness and
due execution of the so-called donation inter vivos set forth in the answer.
The Court of First Instance of Leyte, therefore, declared the deed of sale
fictitious, null, and without effect.

ISSUE:

1. WON The lower Court erred in permitting the defendants to present

evidence, over the objections of the plaintiff, tending to impugn the
genuineness and due execution of the document, and in admitting them
to show the circumstances under which it was executed.

 Section 103 of the Philippine Code of Civil Procedure provides:

"When an action is brought upon a written instrument and the complaint

contains or has annexed a copy of such instrument, the genuineness and due
execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted, unless specifically denied
under oath in the answer; and when the def ense to an action, or a counterclaim
stated in an answer, is founded upon a written instrument and the copy thereof
is contained in or annexed to the answer, the genuineness and due execution of
such instrument shall be deemed admitted, unless specifically denied under oath
by the plaintiff in his pleadings."

The law says that the genuineness and due execution of a written instrument
properly pleaded shall be deemed admitted unless the plaintiff or defendant,
 as the case may be, shall specifically deny the same under oath. We hold that
although the defendants did not deny the genuineness and due execution of
the contract of sale, under oath, yet the defendants could properly set up the

defenses of fraud and want of consideration.

2. WON The lower Court erred in admitting parole evidence

 We hold that parole evidence was properly admitted to show the illegality
of the contract of sale introduced. While thus as the law well says "public
instruments are evidence of the fact which gave rise to their execution" and are
to be considered as containing all the terms of the agreement, yet, if the validity
of the agreement is the issue, parole evidence may be introduced to establish
illegality or fraud. Evidence to establish illegality or fraud, is expressly permitted
under section 285 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and may be proved by
circumstantial evidence, aided by legitimate inferences from the direct facts.

SC DECISION:

We resolve each assignment of error against the appellants, and having

done so, affirm the judgment of the trial court, with costs of this instance
against the appellants.

BAKA ITANONG SA CASE NA ITO:

What is parole evidence? Rule 130 section 9

3. Parol Evidence Rule

Section 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
successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of
the written agreement.

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the

terms of written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:

(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written

agreement;

(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;

(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their

successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.

The term "agreement" includes wills. (7a)