Electronic documents are the functional equivalents of paper-
based documents
 Sec. 1 of Rule 3 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. The
provision declares:
xxx Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the terms of a
writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum, or any
other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an
electronic document as defined in these Rules.
 Since, an electronic document is the functional equivalent of a
paper-based document, whenever a rule of evidence makes
reference to the terms of a writing, a document, a record, an
instrument, a memorandum or any other form of writing, such terms
are deemed to include electronic documents.
 It is therefore but logical to consider the rules of evidence in the
Rules of Court, including statutes containing rules of evidence, to be
of suppletory application to the Rules on Electronic Evidence in all
matters not specifically covered by the latter.
Under Sec. 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the
person offering the document has the burden to prove its authenticity.
SECTION 1. Burden of proving authenticity.—The person
seeking to introduce the electronic document in any legal
proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the
manner provided in this Rule.
The manner of authentication of an electronic document is outlined
under Sec. 2, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence as follows:
Sec. 2. Manner of authentication. — Before any private
electronic document offered as authentic is received in
evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following
means:
(a) By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person
purported to have been signed by the person purported to
have signed the same
(b) By evidence that the appropriate security procedures or
devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by
law for the authentication of electronic documents were
applied to the document; or
(c) By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the
satisfaction of the judge.
 Notice that the aforementioned rigorous requirements for the
authentication of an electronic document do not apply to all
electronic documents.
 Sec. 2 of Rule 5 will obviously apply only when the document is a
private electronic document and when the same is offered as an
authentic document.
 If the electronic document is offered simply for what it is or for what it
is claimed to be without regard to whether or not it is authentic, Sec.
2 of Rule 5 finds no relevance.
 In such a case, the electronic document has only to be identified
pursuant to the suppletory application of Sec. 20 of Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court.
 Accordingly, under the said provision, "Any other private document
need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be."
When for instance, a document is electronically notarized, the manner of
authentication under Sec. 2 of Rule 5 will not likewise apply.
 When so notarized, it is transformed into a public document and is to
be proved not in accordance with the Rules on Electronic Evidence
but in accordance with the Rules of Court.
 The tenor of Sec. 3, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence is
enlightening:
Sec. 3. Proof of electronically notarized document — A
document electronically notarized in accordance with the
Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be
considered as a public document and proved as a notarial
document under the Rules of Court.
 Sec. 30 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, provides for the manner
of proving notarial documents.
 The provision categorically states that".. . Every instrument duly
acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may
be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of
the instrument or document involved.
 Evidentiary Concepts Involved in the Presentation of Documentary
Evidence
 To be admissible, documentary evidence, like any other evidence
must be relevant and competent.
 It is also subject to general exclusionary rules such as the
rule against hearsay, best evidence rule and parol evidence rule.
 Thus, depending upon the specific purpose for which the
contents of the document is offered, there are certain inevitable
issues which may arise in connection with the admissibility of the
document aside from the issue of relevance.
 First, has the document been authenticated?
 Is it relevant?
 Is it the best evidence?
 Is it a mere parol evidence and so must be excluded?
 Is it hearsay and therefore, must be rejected?
 On the other hand, where the evidence is offered as an object
evidence, the best evidence rule, the parol evidence rule, and the
hearsay rule find no application.
Requisites for Admissibility of Documentary Evidence
 The following are the requisites for the admissibility of
documentary evidence:
1. The document must be relevant;
2. The evidence must be authenticated;
3. The document must be authenticated by a competent witness;
and
4. The document must be formally offered in evidence.
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
The 'best evidence' rule as embodied in Sec. 3 of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. —
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document
itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost, or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror:
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of
the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter
fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be examined in court without great
loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a
public officer or is recorded in a public office.
“best evidence,” as used in the “best evidence rule,” has been a
source of misconception.
 It has often been misunderstood and given a meaning it does not
deserve.
 Despite the word “best,” the rule does not proclaim itself as the highest
and most reliable evidence in the hierarchy of evidence.
 The term “best” has nothing to do with the degree of its probative value
in relation to other types of evidentiary rules.
 It is not intended to mean the “most superior” evidence.
 More accurately, it is the “original document” rule or the primary
evidence” rule.
The best evidence rule does not apply to all types of evidence.
 It does not comprehend object and testimonial evidence. It only applies
when the evidence is documentary.
 Also, it does not apply just because a document is offered in
evidence.
 The rule only covers situations in which the subject of inquiry is the
contents of the document.
  Subject to certain exceptions, under the best evidence rule, when
the subject of inquiry relates to the contents of a document, no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document
itself.
 In other words, one who wants to prove the contents of a
document need to present the original document.
 The rule cannot be invoked unless the contents of a writing is the
subject of judicial inquiry, in which case, the best evidence is the
original writing itself.
Purpose of the rule
The rationale behind the rule is the avoidance of dangers of
mistransmissions and inaccuracies of the contents of the
document
1. The best evidence rule ensures that the exact contents of a document
are brought before the court.
 In deeds, wills, and contracts, a slight variation in words may mean
a great, deal of difference in the rights and obligations of the
parties.
 A substantial hazard of inaccuracy exists in the human process of
making a copy by handwriting or typewriting x x x.
2. The best evidence rule, likewise, acts as an insurance against fraud.
 If a party is in the possession of the best evidence in its place, the
presumption naturally arises that the better evidence is withheld for
fraudulent purposes that its production would expose and defeat.
3. The rule, likewise, protects against misleading inferences resulting
from the intentional or unintentional introduction of selected portions of
a larger set of writings
 The theory, therefore, is that the copy of the original is not as reliable as
the latter because of possible inaccuracy in the process of copying and
the danger of erroneous transmission of the original.
 The above principle is reiterated, thus: The only actual rule that the term
“best evidence” denotes is the rule requiring that the original of a writing
must, as a general proposition, be produced.
Waiver of the rule
 The best evidence rule may be waived if not raised in the trial. In one
case, although the marriage certificate, the marriage license, and other
pieces of documentary evidence were only photocopies, the fact that
these have been examined and admitted by the trial court, with no
objections having been made as to their authenticity and due execution,
means that these documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts
contained therein
When document is merely collaterally in issue
 When a document is involved in the inquiry but the document is only
collaterally in issue, the best evidence rule does not apply.
 A document is collaterally in issue when the purpose of introducing
the document is not to establish its terms, but to show facts that
have no reference to its contents like its existence, condition,
execution or delivery.
 If a witness testifies that the victim was writing a letter when he
was shot by the accused, the judge would likely rule against the
party who insists on the presentation of the letter because it is not
the subject of an important issue in the case and, hence, merely
collateral.
 Also, if a witness testifies that he actually saw the debtor tender
payment of his obligation to the creditor, he need not be required
to produce the original promissory note evidencing the debt
because it is the act of payment which is the focal point of the
testimony, not the document. The document need not be, likewise,
presented when the witness merely testifies to the delivery of a
deed of sale by X to Y because proving the contents of the
document itself is not the purpose of the testimony.
How to apply the best evidence rule
 The first step in applying the best evidence rule is to determine the
matter inquired into.
 If the inquiry involves a document, and its contents are the subject
of that same inquiry, the best evidence rule applies and must,
therefore, be complied with.
 The procedural compliance of the rule requires the presentation of
the original document, and not a copy of that document.
 So long as the original is available, no other evidence can be
substituted for the original because the original is the “best
 evidence” and not the mere copies or substitutes thereof.
 To reiterate, the best evidence rule applies only when the contents of
the document is the subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to
whether such document was actually executed, or exists, the best
evidence rule does not apply.
 Now what is to be done if, for one reason or another, the original
cannot be presented in evidence? If this happens, the second step
now comes into play.
 This step involves two stages:
1. Finding an adequate legal excuse for the failure to present the
original; and
2. Presenting a secondary evidence allowed by the Rules of
Court.
 Present the original, except when you can justify its unavailability
in the manner provided for by the Rules of Court.
For the best evidence rule to apply, two requisites must concur:
1. The subject matter must involve a document; and
2. The subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document.
 It is always vital to remember that the best evidence rule applies only
when the purpose is to establish the contents of a writing.
 When the evidence introduced concerns some external fact about a
writing like its existence, execution or delivery, without reference to
its terms, the rule cannot be invoked because the writing is not a
documentary evidence but a mere object evidence.
 The best evidence rule does not apply to an object evidence. Hence,
the original need not be presented.
 The existence or condition of that writing may be proved by any
other evidence, like oral testimony.
Excuses for not presenting the original document
 The excuses for the non-production of the original document refer to the
instances when the original does not have to be produced even
when the contents of the document are the subjects of inquiry.
 These instances are those mentioned in Sec. 3, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court, namely:
1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be
produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
2. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails
to produce it after reasonable notice;
3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be examined in court without great
loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is
only the general result of the whole; and
4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public
officer or is recorded in a public office.
Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence in case of loss,
destruction, or unavailability of the original
 Secondary evidence refers to evidence other than the original
instrument or document itself.
 Secondary evidence, like a copy of the original, is admissible as an
exception if the original writing has been lost, destroyed or cannot be
produced in court without bad faith on the part of the party offering
the secondary evidence.
 This exception does not only cover loss or destruction but also other
reasons for the failure to produce the original in court even if the
original is not lost or destroyed, as when the original is beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.
 Under Sec. 5 of Rule 130, secondary evidence may be admitted only
by laying the basis for its production. Specifically, laying such basis
requires compliance with the following:
1. The offeror must prove the existence and execution of the original
document;
2. The offeror must show the cause of its unavailability such as the
loss or destruction of the original; and
3. The offeror must show that the unavailability was not due to his bad
faith.
 After complying with the requirements for laying the basis for the
introduction of secondary evidence, the offeror may now be allowed to
prove the contents of the documents by secondary evidence.
 Based on the Rules, the presentation of secondary evidence should be
in the following order:
1. a copy of the original;
2. a recital of the contents of the document in some authentic
document; or
3. by the testimony of witnesses
 Accordingly, the correct order of proof is as follows:
 existence,
 execution,
 loss and
 contents
 although, at the sound discretion of the court, this order may be
changed if necessary.
Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence when the
original is in the custody or control of the adverse party
 A showing that the original document is in the custody or under the
control of the adverse party does not ipso facto authorize the
introduction of secondary evidence to prove its contents.
 The party who seeks to present secondary evidence must first lay
the basis for its introduction.
 Laying the basis requires proof of the following:
1. That the original exists;
2. That said document is under the custody or control of the adverse
party;
3. That the proponent of secondary evidence has given the adverse
party reasonable notice to produce the original document; and
4. That the adverse party failed to produce the original document
despite the reasonable notice.
 After the foundational requirements for the introduction of secondary
evidence have been complied with, secondary evidence may now be
presented as in the case of loss.
 This means that the contents of the document may now be proven by a
copy of the document, a recital of its contents in some authentic
document, or by testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence when the
original consists of numerous accounts
 Under this exception, secondary evidence is admissible:
1. if the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents;
2. such accounts or documents cannot be examined in court without
great loss of time; and
3. The fact sought to be established from them is only the general
result of the whole.
 The main reason for this exception lies in the determination by the
court that production of the original writings and their examination in
court would result in great loss of time considering that the evidence
desired from the voluminous accounts is only the general result of the
whole like a summary of the accounts.
 Under this exception, a witness may be allowed to offer a summary of
a number of documents, or the summary itself may be admitted, if the
underlying documents are so voluminous and intricate as to make an
examination of all of them impracticable.
 They may also be presented in the form of charts or calculations.
 As a condition precedent to the admission of a summary of numerous
documents, the proponent must lay a proper foundation for the
admission of the original documents on which the summary is based.
 This means that the source documents must be shown to be
original and not secondary and must be made accessible to the
opposing party so that the correctness of the summary may be
tested on cross-examination or may be refuted in pleadings.
 A proper foundation for the introduction of a summary may be
established through the testimony of the person responsible for the
summary’s preparation, or the person who supervised the
preparation of the summary.
Requisites for the introduction of secondary evidence when the
original document is a public record
 There are instances when the original of a document is a public record
or is recorded in a public office.
 Public records are generally not to be removed from the places
where they are recorded and kept.
  For this reason, the proof of the contents of a document, which
forms part of a public record may be done by secondary evidence.
This evidence is a certified true copy of the original.
 This certified copy is to be issued by the public officer in custody of
the public records.
Effect of not offering a document in evidence after calling for its
production and inspection
 If the party who calls for the production of a document does not offer
the same in evidence, no unfavorable inference may be drawn from
such failure.
 This is because under Sec. 8 of Rule 130, a party who calls for
the production of a document is not required to offer it. The
pertinent provision states:
SEC. 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it.
A party who calls for the production of a document and
inspects the same is not obliged to offer it as evidence.
Meaning of “original"
SEC. 4. Original of document.
(a) The original of a document is one the contents of which are
the subject of inquiry.
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or
about the same time, with identical contents all such copies
are equally regarded as originals.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of
business, one being copied from another at or near the time of
the transaction, all the entries are likewise equally regarded as
originals.
 The layman’s concept refers to the original as the first written and from
which mere copies are made, transcribed or imitated. Accordingly,
from this perspective, there can only one original.
 This is not, however, so under the Rules of Court, there are
instances when subsequent documents are also regarded as
originals.
 When an entry is repeated the regular course of business, one
being copied from another at or near the time of transaction, all the
entries are equal regarded as originals.
To be considered originals under this provision, certain requisites
must be complied with:
1. there must be entries made and repeated in the regular course of
business; and
2. the entries must be made at or near the time of the transaction.
 American authorities declare that where a document is executed in
duplicate or multiplicate form, each one of the parts is primary
evidence of the contents of the document, and the other need not be
produced. In such a case, each is deemed an original.
 The rule observed in the Philippines is the same.
 Under the Rules of Court. “The original of a document is one the
contents of which are the subject of inquiry
 Thus when the rule speaks of an “original” it obviously does not
refer to the original of an object evidence but an original of a
documentary evidence.
 In a documentary evidence, its contents are the subjects of the
inquiry. It is not, therefore, legally accurate to speak of the original
of a gun.
 A signed carbon copy or duplicate of a document executed at the
same time as the original is known as a duplicate original and maybe
introduced in evidence without accounting for the non-production of
the original.
 When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about
the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally
regarded as original.
Originals under the Rules on Electronic Evidence
 Under Sec. 1, Rule 4 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the
original of the electronic document is its printout or output readable by
sight or other means, provided It is shown to reject the data
accurately.
SECTION 1. Original of an electronic document. -An electronic
document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original
document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output
readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data
accurately.
 The copies of the printout or output readable by sight referred to in the
immediately preceding paragraph are also deemed originals where the
copies were executed at or about the same time with identical
contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the
original or from the same matrix, or by other means and which
accurately reproduces the original.
SEC. 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. When a document is in
two or more copies executed at or about the same time with
identical contents, or is a counterpart produced by the same
impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by
mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction,
or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduces the
original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded as the
equivalent of the original.
 For the court not to consider the copies mentioned in the immediately
preceding paragraph as having the same effect as originals, a genuine
question as to the authenticity of the original must be raised, or that
the circumstances would make it unjust or inequitable to admit the
copy in lieu of the original.
 The applicable rule provides:
SEC. 2. Copies as equivalent of the originals. -x x x Notwithstanding
the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same
extent as the original if:
1. A genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
2. In the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit a copy
in lieu of the original.
Original printout of facsimile transmissions
 Is a printout of a facsimile transmission an electronic data message or
electronic document?
 The Court concluded that the terms “electronic data message” and
“electronic document,” as defined under the Electronic Commerce
Act of 2000, do not include a facsimile transmission and
cannot be considered as electronic evidence.
 It is not the functional equivalent of an original under the Best
Evidence Rule and is not admissible as electronic evidence.
 Accordingly, the congressional deliberations on the Electronic
Commerce Act show that when Congress formulated the term
“electronic data message,” it intended the same meaning as the
term “electronic record” in the Canada law which excludes telexes
or faxes, except computer-generated faxes from the term,
“electronic data message.”
 The Court explained that since a facsimile transmission is not an
“electronic data message” or an “electronic document,” and cannot be
considered as electronic evidence by the Court, with greater reason is
a photocopy of such fax transmission not electronic evidence.
 A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at best, an
exact copy preserving all the mark of an original. Without the original,
there is no way of determining on its face whether the facsimile
pleading is genuine and authentic and was originally signed by the
party and his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham.
Parol Evidence Rule
Contracts and the parol evidence rule
 Among the various evidentiary rules, it is the parol evidence rule that
has direct application to the law on contracts.
 The rule, however, applies only to contracts which the parties have
decided to set forth in writing, i.e., as Sec. 9 of Rule 130 provides:
“When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing.”
Hence, when the agreement is merely oral, the parol evidence rule
should not be applied.
 The decision of the parties to reduce the agreement in written form is
critical to the application of the parol evidence rule. When they
 execute a written contract, the parol evidence rule ipso facto comes
into play.
 Under Sec. 9 of Rule 130,
 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.
Application of the Parol Evidence Rule
 The "parol evidence rule" is embodied in Sec. 9, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court which provides:
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 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 the written agreement if he puts in issue in
his pleadings:
(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.
 The term "parol" evidence means something 'oral' or verbal but with
reference to contracts, "parol evidence" means extraneous evidence
or evidence aliunde
 The term refers not only to oral but also to written evidence which are
outside of or extraneous to the written contract between the parties.
 The parol evidence rule becomes operative when the issues in the
litigation are the terms of a written agreement.
 In clear cut language, the basic question that would bring the parol
evidence rule into play is: "What have the parties agreed upon?" The
appropriate answer would be: "Look into the written agreement and
not elsewhere because only the contents of the written agreement are
admissible in evidence."
 There is no need to look into any other source because such
sources are barred by the rule.
 They are barred because as Sec. 9 of Rule 130 provides, the
writing "...is considered as containing all the terms agreed
upon..."
 The provisions of Sec. 9 of Rule 130 consider the written agreement
as the embodiment of all the terms of said agreement, i.e., a total
integration of said agreement.
 Because the writing is considered as containing all the terms
agreed upon by the parties, the traditional distinction between
partial and total integration observed in traditional American
jurisprudence appears irrelevant to the application of the parol
evidence rule in a Philippine setting.
 In American jurisprudence, when a writing is on its face
incomplete, said writing is only a partial integration of the
agreement of the parties hence, parol evidence is not barred to
prove matters not covered by the writing.
 Parol evidence is however, barred when the writing is a total
integration of the agreement.
 Under the Rules of Court, the written agreement is already
"considered to contain all the things agreed upon."
 If this be so, the written agreement already represents the final
expression of the agreement of the parties on the subject. Being a
final agreement, any extraneous evidence or "parol" evidence is
inadmissible for any of the following purposes:
1. to modify,
2. to explain, or
3. to add to the terms of the written agreement.
  The parol evidence rule therefore, forbids any addition to, or
contradiction of, the terms of a written agreement by testimony or
other evidence purporting to show that different terms were agreed
upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written. Whatever is not
found in the writing is understood to have been waived and
abandoned.
 In general, the parol evidence rule is designed to give certainty to
written transactions, to preserve the reliability and to protect the
sanctity of written agreements.
 Be it noted again that the parol evidence rule does not apply to oral
agreements.
 For the parol evidence rule to apply, there must be a writing. But not
all writings will trigger the application of the parol evidence rule.
 That writing must embody an agreement.
 The tenor of Sec. 9 clearly uses the following words: When the
terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing.
 Should the "writing" that embodies the agreement of the parties
be in a particular form? Sec. 9 of Rule 130 only makes reference to
a "writing," not a public writing or a private writing.
Application of the Rule Only to Parties and Their Successors In Interest
 Only the parties are bound by the parol evidence rule.
 The rule that the terms of an agreement are to be proven only by the
contents of the writing itself refers to suits between "parties to the
contract and their successors in interest"
 The rule does not bind suits involving strangers to the contract. It
applies only to the parties to a written agreement and those who are
privy to a party or successors in interest.
Application of the Rule to Wills
 The parol evidence rule applies to contractual obligations. However,
by the explicit provision of Sec. 9 of Rule 130, the term "agreement"
includes wills. There can therefore, be no evidence ^the terms of the
will other than the contents of the will itself.
 While the parol evidence rule applies to wills, an express trust
concerning an immovable or any interest therein may not be proved
by parol evidence
 Any extrinsic evidence therefore, that would modify, explain or add
to the writing would be deemed "parol" evidence and hence, barred.
 Parol evidence is inadmissible to establish stipulations other than
those contained in the writing.
 Thus, all other evidences of the contents of the writing are to be
ignored.
When and How to Introduce Parol Evidence
 The rule prohibiting parol evidence is not absolute.
 A party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of
the written agreement by showing any of the following:
1. An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written
agreement;
2. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and
agreement of the parties thereto;
3. The validity of the written agreement; or
4. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their
successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement
 Introducing parol evidence means offering extrinsic or extraneous
evidence that would modify, explain or add to the terms of the
written agreement but parol evidence may only be allowed, if any of
the matters mentioned above is put in issue in the pleadings.
 Without complying with this requirement — putting in issue in the
pleadings — parol evidence cannot be introduced.
 To reiterate, the parol evidence rule does not per se bar the
introduction of parol evidence as long as the pleader puts in issue in
the pleading any of the matters set forth in the rule such as the
mistake or imperfection of the writing, its failure to express the true
agreement of the parties or the existence of subsequent agreements.
 The key words are "putting in issue" in the pleading. Unless duly
pleaded, a party will be barred from offering extrinsic evidence over
the objection of the adverse party.
 Prior, Contemporaneous and Subsequent Agreements
 The traditional rules limit the inadmissibility of parol evidence or
extrinsic evidence to prior or contemporaneous stipulations.
 Under traditional rules, the agreement would be admissible because
subsequent agreements were not barred by the parol evidence rule.
 The parties to a written agreement may show by parol evidence that
subsequent to the execution of such written agreement, they have
entered into an oral contract tending to waive, dissolve, or annul the
former agreement, or in any manner to add to, or subtract from or vary
or qualify the terms thereof.
 Parol evidence on subsequent agreements may be admitted.
 This means that the existence of another agreement after the
execution of the original written agreement after the execution of the
original written agreement may be introduced without first complying
with the requirement of putting the subsequent agreement in issue.
Intrinsic Ambiguity in the Writing
 An instance when evidence aliunde or parol evidence may be allowed
to modify, explain or even add to the written agreement, is when an
intrinsic ambiguity exists in the written agreement.
 It must be emphasized however, that the mere existence of an
intrinsic ambiguity will not authorize the admission of parol
evidence.
 It is very important that the intrinsic ambiguity be put in issue in the
party's pleading. It is the raising of the issue of intrinsic ambiguity
which will authorize the introduction of parol evidence.
 Intrinsic or latent ambiguity is one which is not apparent on the face
of the document but which lies in the person or thing that is the subject
of the document or deed.
 In other words, the ambiguity is intrinsic or latent when the
language of the writing is clear and intelligible and suggests but a
single meaning but some matter extraneous to the writing creates
the ambiguity.
 The rule allowing parol evidence particularly refers only to an intrinsic
ambiguity in the writing.
 The obvious implication is that where the ambiguity is patent or
extrinsic, parol evidence will not be admitted even if the same is
put in issue in the pleading.
 A patent or extrinsic ambiguity is that which appears on the very
face of the instrument, and arises from the defective, obscure, or
insensible language used
 Parol evidence is not admissible to explain the ambiguity otherwise
the court would be creating instead of construing a contract
 In this type of ambiguity, the document is clear on its face but
matters extraneous to the agreement create the ambiguity.
Mistake or Imperfection in the Writing and Failure to Express the True
Agreement of the Parties
 The admission of evidence aliunde may be justified when there is a
mistake or imperfection in the written agreement.
 Again, this mistake or imperfection must be put in issue in the
pleading by the party who wants to prove the defect in the writing.
 The failure of the writing to express the true agreement of the parties
is another ground for admitting parol evidence as long as the issue is
raised in the pleadings.
 In fact, mistake or imperfection of the writing may be a reason for
the failure of the instrument or writing to embody the intention of
the parties.
 This does not mean however, that the mistake or imperfection
prevented the meeting of the minds between the parties.
 This only means that despite the meeting of the minds, the true
agreement of the parties is not reflected in the instrument.
 Aside from mistake, there are some other reasons enumerated in
substantive law for the failure of the instrument to express the true
intention of the parties like fraud, inequitable conduct or accident,
ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad faith on the part of the
person drafting the instrument.
 Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a
contract, it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract
additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all
 in the writing unless there has been fraud or mistake. purpose of varying the terms of the
writing.
 If the document appears to be a sale, parol evidence may be resorted can be invoked by any litigant to an can be invoked only by the parties
to if the same does not express the true intent of the parties because it action whether or not said litigant is to the document and their
is actually a loan. a party to the document involved. successors in interest.
 The owner of the property may prove that the contract is really a applies to all forms of writing applies to written agreements
loan with mortgage by raising as an issue the fact that the (contracts), and "wills."
document is not really a sale.
 If the subjects of inquiry are the terms of the written agreement
 Reformation of the instrument cannot be brought to reform any between the parties, one must read the agreement itself and not seek
of the following: guidance on sources outside the writing.
1. Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed;  Sources outside such writing are considered “parol” evidence and,
2. Wills; or as a rule, are inadmissible.
3. When the real agreement is void.  This is the “parol evidence” rule. However, one should not look into
any writing. He must look at the original writing.
 This is the “best evidence” rule.
Waiver of the Parol Evidence Rule
 The parol evidence rule can be waived by failure to invoke the benefits
of the rule.
 This waiver may be made by failure to object to the introduction of
evidence aliunde.
 Inadmissible evidence may be rendered admissible by failure to
object.

Probative Value
 Even if parol evidence is admitted, such admission would not mean
that the court would give probative value to the parol evidence.
 Admissibility is not the equivalent of probative value or credibility.

Distinctions Between the Best Evidence Rule and the Parol Evidence
Rule
Best Evidence Rule Parol Evidence Rule

establishes a preference for the is not concerned with the primacy

original document over a
secondary evidence thereof
Precludes the admission of
secondary evidence if the original
document is available.
of evidence but presupposes that
the original is available.
Precludes the admission of other
evidence to prove the terms of a
document other than the contents
of the document itself for the