Alferez vs. Canencia, 990 SCRA 323, June 28, 2021
Uploaded by
Rizchelle Sampang-ManaogAlferez vs. Canencia, 990 SCRA 323, June 28, 2021
Uploaded by
Rizchelle Sampang-ManaogAlferez vs.
Canencia, 990 SCRA 323, June 28, 2021
Topic: Parol Evidence Rule
Facts: Federico J. Alferez (Federico) died on September 23, 1980 without
leaving any will. He was survived by his spouse, Teodora, and their children,
namely: Ma. Concepcion, Antonio, and Esperanza (petitioners).
On January 16, 1981, the CFI issued Letters of Administration in favor of Ma.
Concepcion, appointing her as administratrix of the Estate of Federico.
By reason of the outstanding debts incurred by the late Federico, part of his
estate needed to be sold to settle the same.
Petitioners, later filed an action for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of
Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage, Recovery of Possession,
Damages, and Attorney’s Fees.
Petitioners assert that during negotiations with respondents, they were clear
that the land forming part of Federico and Teodora’s estate, which was about
71 hectares, was not entirely for sale; what they intended to sell was only
the half of Federico. Despite her protests, she was reassured that the Deed
was a temporary document to serve only as a security for the amount to be
advanced by respondents Canencia and that a subsequent Deed would be
prepared once the sale was consummated. To protect their interest as heirs,
Ma. Concepcion requested that the Deed of Sale remain unnotarized.
However, her request went unheeded as respondents went ahead and
notarized the Deed.
When the last yearly installment for the portion belonging to Federico was
settled by respondents Canencia in 1990, Ma. Concepcion reminded
respondents Canencia of their agreement regarding the purchase of the
conjugal share of Teodora. To her astonishment, respondents Canencia
instead showed her the supposed temporary Deed, telling her that they had
already paid for the entire
estate of Federico and Teodora. At that moment, it was evident on the part
of Ma. Concepcion that from the beginning, during the negotiations for the
sale of Federico’s share, that respondents had acted in bad faith, and at the
same time, had taken advantage of her financial difficulties and earnestness
in the transaction due to their desire in settling Federico’s indebtedness.
RTC rules in favor of the respondents. CA declared void the judgment for lack
of jurisdiction. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage should be
annulled for being not reflective of the intent to limit the sale only to the
portion of properties belong to Federico.
Ruling: No, it should not be annulled.
It is basic that a contract is the law between the parties. Obligations arising
from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and
should be complied with in good faith. Unless the stipulations in a contract
are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, the
same are binding as between the parties. Being the law between the parties,
courts have no choice
but to enforce such contracts. Simply put, courts cannot stipulate for the
parties or amend the latter’s agreement, for to do so would be to alter the
real intention of the contracting parties when the contrary function of courts
is to give force and effect to the intention of the parties.
A cursory examination of the Deed affirmingly shows that petitioners,
without qualification, sold, transferred, and conveyed to respondents the
parcels of land, without any mention of their alleged intention to only offer
half of the said property, with the other half belonging to Teodora.
The Deed, as the agreement between the parties, is the formal expression of
the parties’ rights, duties, and obligations. It is the best evidence of the
intention of the parties. Thus, 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 no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the
written agreement between the parties and their successors-in-interest.
The “parol evidence rule” described above forbids any addition to or
contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by testimony or other
evidence purporting to show that, at or before the execution of the parties’
written agreement, other or different terms were agreed upon by the parties,
varying the purport of the written contract. When an agreement has been
reduced to writing, the parties cannot be permitted to adduce evidence to
prove alleged practices, which to all purposes would alter the terms of the
written agreement. Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to
have been waived and abandoned.
By reason of the glaring lack of evidence, the Court cannot subscribe to
petitioner’s contention that respondents had acted in bad faith and had
taken
advantage of their financial difficulties to settle Federico’s indebtedness.
The assailed decision was reversed and set aside.
Doctrine: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced in 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.
