Parol Evidence Rule
On Evidence
Parol Evidence Rule
Evidence of Written Agreements
Parol Evidence:
Any evidence aliunde, whether oral or written, which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document.
General Rule:
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be 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.
Exception:
A Party may present evidence to modify, explain, or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading any of the following:
Parol Evidence:
Any evidence aliunde, whether oral or written, which is intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document.
General Rule:
When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be 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.
Exception:
A Party may present evidence to modify, explain, or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading any of the following:
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
d. The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of 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
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 parol evidence rule is based upon the consideration that when the parties have reduced their agreement on a particular matter into writing, all their previous and contemporaneous agreements on
the matter are merged therein, hence evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict, or defeat the operation of a valid document.
Formerly, even if there was a written agreement on a particular subject matter, the parol evidence rule did not apply to or bar evidence of a collateral agreement between the same parties on the same or related subject matter, in the following instances:
1. Where the collateral agreement is not inconsistent with the terms of the written contract
2. Where the collateral agreement has not been integrated into and is independent of the written contract as where it is suppletory to the original contract
3. Where the collateral agreement is subsequent to or novation of the written contract
4. Where the collateral agreement constitutes a condition precedent which determines whether the written contract may become operative or effective, but this exception shall not apply to a condition subsequent not stated in the agreement
Parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by either party to the litigation against the other, where at least one party to the suit is not a party or privy to the written instrument in question and does not base a claim or assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby.
PNB vs. Seeto 1952
The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply to collateral agreements.
Pioneer Savings vs. CA
The rule does not apply to exclude evidence of conditions subsequent in a deed of sale where such conditions were not stated in the agreement.
Woodhouse vs. Halili 1953
It also does not apply if the issue revolves around fraud and false representation since they are incidental to the execution and not to the integration.
Lechugas vs. CA 1986
It does not apply either when 3rd parties are involved.
Ortañez v. CA 1997
The exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule must be squarely put in issue.
1997 Bar Examination
Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:
a) Dead Man Rule
b) Parol Evidence Rule
c) Best Evidence Rule
d) The rule against the admission of illegally obtained extrajudicial confession
e) The rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in civil cases
The parol evidence rule is based upon the consideration that when the parties have reduced their agreement on a particular matter into writing, all their previous and contemporaneous agreements on
the matter are merged therein, hence evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict, or defeat the operation of a valid document.
Formerly, even if there was a written agreement on a particular subject matter, the parol evidence rule did not apply to or bar evidence of a collateral agreement between the same parties on the same or related subject matter, in the following instances:
1. Where the collateral agreement is not inconsistent with the terms of the written contract
2. Where the collateral agreement has not been integrated into and is independent of the written contract as where it is suppletory to the original contract
3. Where the collateral agreement is subsequent to or novation of the written contract
4. Where the collateral agreement constitutes a condition precedent which determines whether the written contract may become operative or effective, but this exception shall not apply to a condition subsequent not stated in the agreement
Parol evidence rule does not apply, and may not properly be invoked by either party to the litigation against the other, where at least one party to the suit is not a party or privy to the written instrument in question and does not base a claim or assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby.
PNB vs. Seeto 1952
The Parol Evidence Rule does not apply to collateral agreements.
Pioneer Savings vs. CA
The rule does not apply to exclude evidence of conditions subsequent in a deed of sale where such conditions were not stated in the agreement.
Woodhouse vs. Halili 1953
It also does not apply if the issue revolves around fraud and false representation since they are incidental to the execution and not to the integration.
Lechugas vs. CA 1986
It does not apply either when 3rd parties are involved.
Ortañez v. CA 1997
The exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule must be squarely put in issue.
1997 Bar Examination
Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:
a) Dead Man Rule
b) Parol Evidence Rule
c) Best Evidence Rule
d) The rule against the admission of illegally obtained extrajudicial confession
e) The rule against the admission of an offer of compromise in civil cases
Suggested Answer:
b) Parol Evidence Rule
It is designed to give certainty to a transaction that has been reduced to writing because written evidence is much more certain and accurate than that which rests on fleeting memory only.
2001 Bar Examination
Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the recovery of a sum of money based on a promissory note executed by Lucio. In his complaint, Pedro alleged that although the promissory note says that it is
payable within 120 days, the truth is that the note is payable immediately after 90 days but that if Pedro is willing, he may, upon request of Lucio give the latter up to 120 days to pay the note. During the hearing, Pedro testified that the truth is that the agreement between him and Lucio is for the latter to pay immediately after ninety days. Also, since the original note was with Lucio and the latter would not surrender to Pedro the original note which Lucio kept in a place about one day’s trip from where he received the notice to produce the note and despite such notice to produce the same within six hours from receipt of such notice, Lucio failed to do so. Pedro presented a copy of the note which was executed at the same time as the original and with identical contents.
b) Parol Evidence Rule
It is designed to give certainty to a transaction that has been reduced to writing because written evidence is much more certain and accurate than that which rests on fleeting memory only.
2001 Bar Examination
Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the recovery of a sum of money based on a promissory note executed by Lucio. In his complaint, Pedro alleged that although the promissory note says that it is
payable within 120 days, the truth is that the note is payable immediately after 90 days but that if Pedro is willing, he may, upon request of Lucio give the latter up to 120 days to pay the note. During the hearing, Pedro testified that the truth is that the agreement between him and Lucio is for the latter to pay immediately after ninety days. Also, since the original note was with Lucio and the latter would not surrender to Pedro the original note which Lucio kept in a place about one day’s trip from where he received the notice to produce the note and despite such notice to produce the same within six hours from receipt of such notice, Lucio failed to do so. Pedro presented a copy of the note which was executed at the same time as the original and with identical contents.
a) Over the objection of Lucio, will Pedro be allowed to testify as to the true agreement or contents of the promissory note? Why? (2%)
b) Over the objection of Lucio, can Pedro present a copy of the promissory note and have it admitted as valid evidence in his favor? Why? (3%)
Suggested Answers:
a) Yes, because Pedro has alleged in his complaint that the promissory note does not express the true intent and agreement of the parties. This is an exception to the parol evidence rule.
a) Yes, because Pedro has alleged in his complaint that the promissory note does not express the true intent and agreement of the parties. This is an exception to the parol evidence rule.
b) Yes, the copy in the possession of Pedro is a duplicate original and with identical contents. [Sec. 4(b) of Rule 130. Moreover, the failure of Lucio to produce the original note is excusable because he was not given reasonable notice, as required under the Rules before secondary evidence may be presented.
Parol Evidence Rule states that 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, as between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.
Parol evidence is any evidence aliunde (extrinsic evidence) that is intended or tends to vary or contradict a complete and enforceable agreement embodied in a document. It may refer to testimonial, real, or documentary evidence.
Requisites for the application of the parol evidence rule:
1. There must be a valid contract;
2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced to writing;
3. The dispute is between the parties or their successors-in-interest; and
4. There is a dispute as to the terms of the agreement
Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule: (FIVE)
1. Failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the parties thereto;
2. Intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement;
3. Validity of the written agreement; or
4. Existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the execution of the written agreement.
Authentication of a document is the process of proving the due execution and genuineness of a document.
Requisites of ancient document (authentic document rule):1. That the private document be more than 30 years old;2. That it be produced from custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine; and3. That it is unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion.
Bigwas
Bigwas blog about Criminal law and Procedure, Criminology and Crimes, Philippine Banking and Finance, Insurance and Investment.