Conde V. CA1 | Melencio-Herrera, J.

(1982)
RATIO DECIDENDI
The purpose of the rule is to give stability to written agreements,
and to remove the temptation and possibility of perjury, which
would be afforded if parol evidence was admissible.
FACTS

Margarita Conde, Bernardo Conde and Dominga Conde sold with a

right of repurchase, within 10 years from, a parcel of agricultural
land to the Altera Spouses.
o
The contract provided that: If at the end of 10 years the
said land is not repurchased, a new agreement shall be
made between the parties and in no case title and
ownership shall be vested in the hand of the party of the
Second Part (Alteras).
The Cadastral Court of Leyte then adjudicated the lot to the
Alteras subject to the right of redemption counting from 7 April
1938 after returning the amount of PHP 165.00
On 28 November 1945, Paciente Cordero, son-in-law of the
Alteras signed a document allowing Eusebio Amarille, the
representative of the Condes, to repurchase the land.
On 30 June 1965, Pio Altera sold the disputed lot to the
spouses Ramon Conde and Catalina Conde. (Relationship to
the other Condes were not shown)
Dominga then filed a Complaint for quieting of title to property.

ISSUE/HELD
WoN Dominga Conde validly repurchased the said lot - YES
RATIO

Although the 10 year period had lapsed in 1965, and

there was no annotation of any repurchase by Dominga
Conde, neither had the title been cleared of the
encumbrance.

They were put on notice that some other person

could have a right to or interest in said property.
The Conde spouses conends that Paciente Cordero signed the
document of repurchase merely to show that he had no objection
to the repurchase. They introduced evidence for this purpose.
o
There is nothing in the document of repurchase to
show that Paciente Cordero had signed the same merely
to indicate that he had no objection to Dominga Condes
right of repurchase.
o
At the same time, he had no personality to object.
o
To uphold his oral testimony on that point, would be a
departure from the parol evidence rule and would defeat
the purpose for which the doctrine is intended.

The purpose of the rule is to give stability to

written agreements, and to remove the
temptation and possibility of perjury, which
would be afforded if parol evidence was
admissible.
o

An implied agency was created from the silence or lack of action,

or their failure to repudiate the agreement.
o
The Alteras did not repudiate the agreement that their
son-in-law signed.
From the execution of the repurchase document in 1945,
possession, which heretofore had been with the Alteras, has been
in the hands of Dominga Conde as stipulated therein.
Land taxes has already been paid for by Dominga Conde.
Ramon and Catalina Conde are not purchasers in good faith.
o
The OCT in the name of the Alteras specifically contained
the condition that it was subject to the right of
repurchase within 10 years from 1938.

Kdjnaskljndoiasncjkdnsvfnsovndkajfnasijdlksanvjdosnvodnfjndsvd
Advnsdjv bfhksbvds
Vdabvjfbvkfjsbviudbvkjfsbvud
Asjbfcewofocneqcuenwiocjjewobceoujcoewncw
\e
ecejwcnejwncecnuejicqnecuncjjiaksofjihgeqf
egfbenjfniecnejnjnce
cejdnkfbniucdhifjeojeoqjfiouitbjebg
geigjdosjfoiahiDHJEIQWJ
FJAFIHVHJEBFIOAHGFE
efiodjfioasbfdsjk
fodsijfioda fdfdj sfda
dsbfjdbfidsbf dsfdnfidbnsifds
\

PAT HERNANDEZ

C2012 DIGEST GROUP | NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW VAZQUEZ

Page 1 of 1