ortanez vs ca.docx

Ortanez vs. CA Facts: Spouses Inocentes sold two parcel of registered land to Ortanez for a consideration considera tion of 35,000 and 20,000 respectively, which the latter paid to the former. Spouse Inocentes however failed to deliver the titles of the land to Ortanez. Ortanez demanded the delivery of the titles of the land but the spouse refused. They claim that the title of the first lot is in the possession of another person. As to the second lot, the spouses claim that Ortanez’s acquisition of the same is subject to the following  oral conditions that were never reflected in the deed of sale: 1. the segregation of Ortanez’s right of way amounting to 398 sq. m.; 2. the submission to the spouse the approved plan for the segregation; 3. The building of a strong wall between Ortanez’s property and that of spouses’lot to segregate the former’s right of way; and 4. The payment by Ortanez of capital gains tax and all other expenses that may be incurred by reason of sale. Ortanez objected the introduction introduction of evidence on the said oral conditions as being barred by the parole evidence rule. However, the lower court overruled the said objection and dismissed the complaint, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. Ortanez sought recourse to the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or not parol evidence to prove the oral conditions that were never reflected in the contract of sale is admissible. Ruling: Parole evidence is not admissible. The rule on evidence provides that when terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. In the present case, the oral testimony of Inocentes concerning the alleged existence of the oral conditions is unreliable, having come from interested party and based solely on human memory which is fleeting and inaccurate. This case must be distinguished from the case o9f Land Settlement Development, Co. vs Garcia Plantation because in the said case, there was an express provision in the contract that the same is subject to conditions-precedent, which were proven by parole evidence. In this case, there was no such reference to other conditions not stated in the contract. The parole evidence sought to be introduced in the present case would vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid instrument, which the parole evidence rule prescribes. prescribes. Parole evidence is is admissible only to explain the the meaning of a contract. It It cannot however, incorporate in the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not stated in the writing unless there has been fraud or mistake. No fraud or mistake exists in the present case. There is no merit in the contention of the Inocentes that the written contract failed to express the true intent of the parties thereto because no ambiguity, mistake or imperfection was found rendering the deed of sale doubtful. Moreover, the spouses did not put in the issue in their pleadings that there was failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the parties but merely alleged the presence of the four conditions-precedent not mentioned in the contract.