Lechugas v CA Digest

LECHUGAS V. CA PRINCIPLE:

FA FACT CTS: Victoria

Lechugas (petitioner) bought a land from a certain Leoncia Lasangue. After the purchase of the land, the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Leoncia Lasangue in her favor specified a certain land Lot No. 5456 stated in the contract. Then the defendants (respondents) occupied Lot No. 5456, petitioner filed a complaint for forcible entry with damag da mages es again aga inst st again aga inst st the defend def endan ants ts but bu t iitt was dismiss dismissed. ed. Petitioner Petitioner appeal appealed ed the case to the CFI (now RTC) of Iloilo. lo. While Whi le the appeal for the ejectment case was pending, petitioner filed another case in the RTC for the recovery of the possession against the same defendants involving the same Lot No. 5456. D u r i n g t h e trial, trial, the the defenda defendants nts (resp (r espon onden dents ts presente presented d their their witness witness in the the person person of Leoncia Leoncia Lasangu Lasangue e hers herself. elf. Leonc Leo ncia ia Lasan La sangue gue testified during the trial that according to her, the lot that she sold to the petitioner was not Lot No. 5456 but another lot, Lot 5522. Lasangue did not know how to read and write, so the document of sale was prepared by the petitioner, thereafter, the former was made to sign it. Based on her testimony, the lot indicated in the Deed of Sale which she sold to petitioner was erroneous. It was clear that she did not intend to sell a piece of land already sold by her fa th er to th e pre dec es so r1i n1 interest interest of the the defendant defendantss (responde (respondents) nts).. This was objecte objected d by the petitioner petitioner under the the parole evidence rule. ISSUE: HELD:

Whether or not the Parole Evidence Rule apply in this case

The Court resolved in the negative. The Parole evidence rule will not apply in this case because it is Leoncia Lasangue who is one of the parties to the subject Deed of Sale not the defendants. The defendants in the case &ere not parties to the Deed of Sale executed executed between Leoncia Lasange Lasange and petitioner Lechugas. Lechugas. The rule is not applicable wher where e the the controversy is betw een one of the parties to the document and third persons. The deed of sale w as executed by Leoncia Lasangue in favor of Victoria Victoria Lechugas. The dispute over that was actually sold is between petitioner and the private respondents. In the case at bar, through the testimony of Leoncia Lasangue, i t was shown that that she really intended to sell and to be the subject of Exhibit A was Lot No. 5522 but not being able to read and write and and full fully y rely relyin ing g on the the good good fait faith h of of her her first irst cous cousin in,, the the pet i ti on er , sh e ju st pl ac ed he r th um b ma rk on a pi ec e of pa pe r w hi ch pe ti ti on e r to ld he r w as th e docu docume ment nt evid eviden enci cing ng the the sale sale of land land.. The The deed eed of sale sale described the disputed lot instead.