c


  

Reyes v. CA

This is a case wherein affidavits were presented in an agrarian case; but the affiants were not brought to court. The evidence
in this case was ruled as admissible. Since substantial evidence shall suffice in agrarian cases.

People v. Turco

Admissibility of medical certificate in a rape case. Although the medical officer who prepared it was not presented in this case,
the said certificate is still admissible. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and it not excluded by the law or
these rules. (Rule 128.3)

   

Bautista v. Aparece

A public document instituted before a guerilla officer is relevant thus admissible. The mere fact that the public document was
executed before a guerilla officer does not make the same irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent to the main issues raised in
the pleadings.

Lopez v. Heesen

The expert testimony is admissible in this case bring relevant to the case. The allegations on the ultimate facts in issue involve
whether the Higgins Model 51 rifle was in a dangerous and defective condition due to its negligent manufacture, in that the
safety mechanism moved re4adily from Dzsafedz to Dzfiredz position. This is an issue, the proper understanding of which, requires
knowledge or experience and cannot be determined independently merely from deductions made and inferences drawn on
the basis of ordinary knowledge.

State v. Ball

Unexplained flight and resisting arrest even thirty days after the supposed commission of the crime is a relevant circumstance.
The remoteness of the flight goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility.

  
 

ccc

Ganaan v. IAC

An extension telephone is not among the prohibited device in Section 1 of the Anti Wire Tapping Act. There must be either a
physical interruption through a wiretap or deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept or
record spoken words.

Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA

Absent any clear showing that both parties consented to the recording, the inadmissibility of the tapes is mandatory under R.A.
No. 4200

Ramirez v. CA

R.A. No. 4200 applies to recordings by one of the parties to the conversation. Section 1 of the Act clearly and unequivocally
makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all parties to any private communication to secretly record such
communication by means of a tape recorder. The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by
the statute ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the private communication.

Mamba v. Garcia

For administrative proceedings, substantial evidence will suffice, while in criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is
required.

Marquez v. Desierto
An in camera inspection may be allowed, there must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction. Further, the
account must be clearly identified, the inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of
competent jurisdiction. The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection, and
such inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case.

In the case at bar, there is yet no pending litigation before any court of competent authority. What is existing is an
investigation by the office of the Ombudsman. In short, what the Office of the Ombudsman would wish to do is to fish for
additional evidence to formally charge Amado Lagdameo, et. al., with the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, there was no pending case in
court which would warrant the opening of the bank account for inspection.

Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan

The protection afforded by the Bank Secrecy Law is, however, not absolute, there being recognized exceptions thereto, as
above-quoted Section 2 provides. In the present case, two exceptions apply, to wit: (1) the examination of bank accounts is
upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, and (2) the money deposited or
invested is the subject matter of the litigation.

Petitioner contends that since plunder is neither bribery nor dereliction of duty, his accounts are not excepted from the
protection of R.A. 1405. Philippine National Bank v. Gancayco 7 holds otherwise:

Cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty and no reason is seen why these two classes
of cases cannot be excepted from the rule making bank deposits confidential. The policy as to one cannot be different from the
policy as to the other. This policy expresses the notion that a public office is a public trust and any person who enters upon its
discharge does so with the full knowledge that his life, so far as relevant to his duty, is open to public scrutiny.

People v. Yatar

DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can link a suspect to a crime or eliminate one from suspicion in the same principle
as fingerprints are used. Incidents involving sexual assault would leave biological evidence such as hair, skin tissue, semen,
blood, or saliva which can be left on the victimǯs body or at the crime scene. Hair and fiber from clothing, carpets, bedding, or
furniture could also be transferred to the victimǯs body during the assault. Forensic DNA evidence is helpful in proving that
there was physical contact between an assailant and a victim. If properly collected from the victim, crime scene or assailant,
DNA can be compared with known samples to place the suspect at the scene of the crime.

People v. Bardaje

This case also constitutes an exception to the general belief that a young girl would not expose herself to the ordeal of public
trial if she were not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit who had ravished and shamed her placed behind bars. As
we view it, MARCELINA was confronted with a paradoxical situation as a daughter of relative tender age who could not
shamefacedly admit to her parents that she had eloped and voluntarily submitted to sexual intercourse, since that elopement
must have met with righteous indignation on the part of her parents. As a result, MARCELINA was faced with no other choice
but to charge ADELINO with rape or incur the ire of her parents and social disrepute from a small community.

In respect of the alleged confession of ADELINO, suffice it to re-state that "an extrajudicial confession made by an accused shag
not be sufficient ground for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Corpus delicti is proved when the
evidence on record shows that the crime prosecuted had been committed. That proof has not been met in the case at bar, the
evidence establishing more of an elopement rather than kidnapping or illegal detention or forcible abduction, and much less
rape.

     

   

City of Manila v. Garcia

The trial judge was correct in finding that it was necessary to expand the school grounds (the lot affected was occupied by
squatters-complainant) when it took judicial notice of Ordinance 4566 which recites that an amount of 100k had been set
aside for the construction of an additional building in an elementary school.
Baguio v. Vda de Jalagat

The trial court may take judicial notice of the finality of judgment in a case that was previously pending and thereafter decided
by it. DzCourts could take judicial notice of previous cases to determine whether or not the case pending is a moot one or
whether or not the previous ruling is applicable in the case after considerationdz Chief Justice Morgan.

Prieto v. Arroyo

As a general rule, courts are not authorized to take judicial notice, in the adjudication of cases pending before them, of the
contents of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding the fact
that both cases may have been tried or actually pending before the same judge.

Exemption is when Dzin the absence of objection or Dzwith the knowledge of the opposing partydz.

Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales

Philippines courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws or customs. They must be alleged and proved as a fact. If not
alleged and proven as a fact, the doctrine of processual presumption shall apply. (or an assumption that the foreign law is the
same with the domestic law).

Tabuena v. CA

The Trial Court erred in taking judicial notice of the contents of records of other cases in the adjudication of the cases pending
before them, or (apply the exemption in Prieto v. Arroyo), since in this case, it was clear that such judicial notice was without
the knowledge of the opposing party.

People v. Godoy

Judicial notice in rape cases- The Supreme Court took judicial notice of the fact that in rural areas, young ladies are strictly
required to act with circumspection and prudence. Great reputation is observed so that their reputation will remain
untainted.

BPI Savings v. CTA

Sec.2 Rule 129 provides that courts may take judicial notice of matters ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
functions. In this case, the Court notes that a copy of the Decision in CTA was attached to the Petition for Review filed before
this Court.

Manufacturerǯs Hanover Trust v. Guerrero

Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice.Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proven. Certainly, the conflicting
allegations as to whether New York law or Philippine law applies to Guerreroǯs claims present a clear dispute on material
allegations which can be resolved only by a trial on the merits.

Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be proved by (1) an
official publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof. Such official publication or
copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the legal
custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in
the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation must state, in
substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and must be under the
official seal of the attesting officer.

People v. Rullepa

Judicial notice can be applied sometimes in rape cases. However this was not applied in this case. The motherǯs testimony
which stated that the child was only 3 when the crime occurred cannot suffice in the absence of certificate of live birth. (If
below 7, it will be considered as statutory rape, which is more grave). DzWhether the victim was below seven years old,
however, is another matter. Here, reasonable doubt exists. A mature three and a half-year old can easily be mistaken for an
underdeveloped seven-year old. The appearance of the victim, as object evidence, cannot be accorded much weight and,
following jruna, the testimony of the mother is, by itself, insufficient.dz
Land Bank v. Banal

Well-settled is the rule that courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even
when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge. They may only do so "in the
absence of objection" and "with the knowledge of the opposing party," which are not obtaining here.

Pigao v. Rabanillo

We agree with respondent. We cannot take cognizance of this document Ȃ the conditional contract to sell between Bernabe
and the PHHC alleged to be the pro-forma contract used by PHHC with its applicants - which petitioners are presenting for the
first time. This document is not among the matters the law mandatorily requires us to take judicial notice of. Neither can we
consider it of public knowledge nor capable of unquestionable demonstration nor ought to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions.We have held that:

Matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it
must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of
jurisdiction of the court. The power of taking judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution.  
  
                      !       "
"       
 # .(emphasis supplied)

Consequently, for this document to be properly considered by us, it should have been presented during trial and formally
offered as evidence. Otherwise, we would be denying due process of law to respondent

 c
 

Lucido v. Calupitan

The original answer to the complaint which stated that the transaction was one of sale with right to repurchase was deemed as
an admission of the party and was treated as a statement of real issue

Pleadings superseded or amended disappear from the record as judicial admissions. However, any statement contained
therein may be considered as an extrajudicial admission, and as such, in order that the court may take it into consideration, it
should be offered formality in evidence.

Torres v. Court of Appeals

Having been amended, the original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission, which would have required no proof,
and became merely an extrajudicial admission of which as evidence, required its formal offer.

Atillo v. CA

Judicial admission can be contradicted if it is taken out of context. As provided for in Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of
Court, the general rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it and does not require proof admits of
two exceptions: 1) when it is shown that the admission was made through palpable mistake, and 2) when it is shown that no
such admission was in fact made. The latter exception allows one to contradict an admission by denying that he made such an
admission.

For instance, if a party invokes an "admission" by an adverse party, but cites the admission "out of context", then the one
making the admission may show that he made no "such" admission, or that his admission was taken out of context.

Republic v, Sandiganbayan

The Government forfeited the Swiss funds of the Marcoses, when it considered its answer as judicial admission. Marcoses
made judicial admissions of their ownership of the subject Swiss bank deposits in their answer, the General/Supplemental
Agreements, Mrs. Marcos' Manifestation and Constancia dated May 5, 1999, and the Undertaking dated February 10, 1999. We
take note of the fact that the Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan were unanimous in holding that respondents had made
judicial admissions of their ownership of the Swiss funds.

In their answer, aside from admitting the existence of the subject funds, respondents likewise admitted ownership thereof.
People v. Lacson

he respondentǯs contention that his admissions made in his pleadings and during the hearing in the CA cannot be used in the
present case as they were made in the course of a different proceeding does not hold water. It should be borne in mind that the
proceedings before the Court was by way of an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, from the proceedings
in the CA; as such, the present recourse is but a mere continuation of the proceedings in the appellate court. This is not a new
trial, but a review of proceedings which commenced from the trial court, which later passed through the CA. The respondent is
bound by the judicial admissions he made in the CA, and such admissions so hold him in the proceedings before this Court. As
categorically stated in Habecker v. Clark Equipment Company:

... [J]udicial admissions on issues of fact, including those made by counsel on behalf of a client during a trial, are binding "for
the purpose of the case ... including appeals."

Herrera Felix v. CA

The admissions made in a motion are judicial admissions which are binding on the party who made them. Such party is
precluded from denying the same unless there is proof of palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

By filing the said motion, through counsel, the petitioner thereby submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Heirs of Pedro Clemena v. Heirs of Irene Bien

Petitioners' contention that the land was never in their possession should be dismissed outright for two reasons, both of them
simple and rather obvious.

First, petitioners' predecessor Pedro Clemeña y Zurbano alleged in his answer that the land declared in TD 5299 was in his
exclusive possession.That statement, insofar as it confirmed the allegation in the complaint that petitioners' predecessor had
retained possession of the land in question,took on the character of a judicial admission contemplated in Section 4, Rule 129 of
the Rules of Court:

An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The
admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was
made.

A judicial admission conclusively binds the party making it. He cannot thereafter contradict it. The exception is found only in
those rare instances when the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion and because of strong reasons to support its stand,
may relieve a party from the consequences of his admission.

Luciano Tan v. Rodil Enterprises

The petitionerǯs judicial admission in open court, as found by the MeTC, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals finds particular
significance when viewed together with his Motion to Allow Defendant to Deposit Rentals, wherein petitioner stated that the
rentals due on the premises in question from September 1997 up to the present amounted to P467,500.00, as of the date of
filing the Motion. Petitioner cannot now be allowed to reject the same. An admission made in the pleading cannot be
controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to him, and that all proofs submitted by him contrary
thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored whether objection is interposed by a party or not. A judicial admission is
an admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, for purposes of the truth of some alleged fact,
which said party cannot thereafter disprove.

Real and Demonstrative Evidence

People v. Bardaje

Physical evidence is of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than all witness put together. This is a rape case where
the medical findings saw no evidence of external injuries found around the vulva or any part of the body.

Sison v. People
Photographs when presented in evidence must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as to the
circumstances which they were produced. The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or
reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime.
This can be proved by other competent witness, other than the photographer himself.

Adamczuck v. Holloway

A map or photograph, in order to be admissible must be made a part of some qualified personǯs testimony. Someone must
stand forth as its testimonial sponsor. In other words, IT MUST BE VERIFIED,

State . Tatum

The quantum of authentication required by the courts before a photograph may be admissible in evidence was stated thus:
Dzthat some witness, not necessarily the photographer, be able to give some indication as to when, where and under what
circumstances the photograph was taken, and the photograph accurately portray the subject or subjects illustrated.dz The
photograph need only be sufficiently accurate to be helpful to the court and the jury.

    

Air France v. Carrascoso

The utterance of the purser regarding his entry in the notebook was spontaneous, and related to the circumstances of the
ouster incident. Its trustworthiness has been guaranteed. It thus escapes the operation of the hearsay rule. It forms part of the
res gestae.

It is not within the Best Evidence Rule as the entry was made outside the Philippines by the employee of Air France.

Meyers v. US

The best evidence rule applies only when contents of a writing are to be proved which does not obtain in the case at bar.

In prosecution for perjured testimony given before the Senate committee, the testimony by chief counsel of the senatorial
committee as to what witnesses had sworn to was not barred under the best evidence rule, and it was not unfair or prejudicial
to permit transcript of testimony given before the subcommittee to be introduced after chief counsel had testified, though
counsel testified early in protracted trial and transcript was introduced near its close, since both methods of proving the
perjury were permissible, and prosecution could present its proof in any order it chose.

Here, there was no attempt to prove the contents of a writing. The issue was what Lamarre had said, not what the transcript
contained.

People v. Tan

The Court said that the admissibility of duplicates or triplicates has long been a settled question. It quoted with approval the
opinion of Moran, a commentator on the Rules of Court. When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of
writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be charged
thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of the pen
which made the surface or exposed the impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as duplicate originals and
either of them may be introduced in evidence as such without accounting for the non-production of the others.

Seiler v. Lucas Film

Drawings can be considered as writings under the Best Evidence Rule. Seilerǯs drawings were Dzwritingsdz within the meaning
of Rule 1001 (1) which defined writings and records as Dzletters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by
handwriting, typewriting, printing, Photostatting, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or
other forms of data compilation.dz According to the Court, Seilerǯs drawings consist not of Dzletters, words or numbersdz but of
Dztheir equivalent.dz

People v. Tandoy

The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to
whether or not such document was actually executed, or exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. Since the aforesaid marked money
was presented by the prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents, other
substitutionary evidence, like a Xerox copy thereof, is therefore admissible without the need of accounting for the original.

US v. Gregorio

Best Evidence in Criminal Cases- In a criminal case for the falsification of a document, it is indispensable that the judges and
the courts have before them the document alleged to have been simulated, counterfeited, or falsified, in order that they may
find, pursuant to the evidence produced at trial, whether or not the crime of falsification was actually committed; in the
absence of the original document, it is improper to conclude, with only a copy of the said original in view, that there has been a
falsification of a document which was neither found nor exhibited, because, in such a case, even the existence of such original
may be doubted.

Fiscal of Pampanga v. Reyes

The general rules regarding the admissibility of evidence are applicable to cases of libel or slander. This being so, the rule of
procedure which requires the production of the best evidence is applicable to the present case. The copies of the weekly where
the libelous article was published, and its translation, constitute the best evidence of the libel charged. The newspaper itself is
the best evidence of an article published in it.

Vda. De Corpus v. Brabangco

How a lost original document may be proved- The plaintiff declared that the original deed of sale signed by defendant Tiburcia
was lost during the war. The record of the present case will bear that its existence was convincingly proven not only by the
testimony of Heraclea Vda. De Corpus, the surviving widow, and by the environmental facts disclosed by the evidence, but also
by the disinterested testimony of Pablo Albeza. After proper proof of the due execution & delivery of the instrument & its loss
or destruction, oral evidence may be given of its contents by any person who signed the document, or who read it.

As to the second issue, it is not necessary, in order to admit evidence of the contents of a lost instrument, that the witness
should be able to testify with verbal accuracy to its contents; it is sufficient if they are able to state it in substance.

Compania Maritima v. Allied Free Workers

The company argues that the accountantǯs (auditorǯs) reports are admissible in evidence because of the rule that Dzwhen the
original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and
the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole, the original writings need not be produced.
That rule cannot be applied in this case because the voluminous character of the records on which the accountantǯs reports
were based was not duly established. Moreover, in order for said rule to be applied, the records and accounts should be made
accessible to the adverse party so that the correctness of the summary may be tested on cross-examination.

What applies is the general rule Dzthat an audit made by or the testimony of a private auditor is inadmissible in evidence as
proof of the original records, books of accounts, reports or the like. The company failed to make a preliminary showing as to
the difficulty or impossibility attending the production of the records in court and their examination and analysis as evidence
by the court

Villa Rey Transit v. Ferrer

The requisites for the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original is in the custody of the adverse party are: a.)
opponentǯs possession of the original; b.) reasonable notice to opponent to produce the original; c.) satisfactory proof of its
existence; d.) failure or refusal of opponent to produce the original in court.

Said requisites have been complied with. Villarama has practically admitted the 2nd and 4th. As to the 3rd, he admitted their
previous existence in the files of VRTI and had even seen some of them. As to the 1st, he said that the originals were missing
and that VRTI was no longer in possession of the same. However, it is not necessary for a party seeking to introduce
secondary evidence to show that the original is in the actual possession of the adversary. It is enough that the circumstances
are such as to indicate that the writing is in his possession or under his control.

Michael & Co. v. Enriquez

The writing itself must be produced unless it has been lost or destroyed in which case, before its contents may be proved by
other evidence, it must be shown by the party offering secondary evidence (1) that the document was duly executed and
delivered, where delivery is necessary (2) that it has been lost or destroyed. The execution or delivery of the document maybe
established by the person or persons, who executed it, by the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, or by any
person who was present and saw it executed and delivered or who, after its execution and delivery, saw it and recognized the
signatures; or by a person to whom the parties to the instruments have previously confessed the execution thereof. The
destruction of the instrument may be proved by any person knowing the fact.

De Vera v. Aguilar

Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents were actually lost or destroyed. But prior to the introduction
of such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the former existence of the instrument. The correct order of proof
is as follows: existence, execution, loss, contents although this order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court.
The sufficiency of proof for the admission of an alleged lost deed lies within the judicial discretion of the TC.

In the case at bar, the TC merely ruled in the existence and dye execution of the alleged deed of sale.

Tenebro v. CA

The certified copy of the marriage contract, issued by a public officer in custody thereof, was admissible as the best evidence of
its contents. The marriage contract plainly indicates that a marriage was celebrated between petitioner and Villareyes on
November 10, 1986, and it should be accorded the full faith and credence given to public documents.

BPI v. Casa Montessori Internationale

Forgery "cannot be presumed." It must be established by clear, positive and convincing evidence. Under the best evidence rule
as applied to documentary evidence like the checks in question, no secondary or substitutionary evidence may inceptively be
introduced, as the original writing itself must be produced in court. But when, without bad faith on the part of the offeror, the
original checks have already been destroyed or cannot be produced in court, secondary evidence may be produced.Without
bad faith on its part, CASA proved the loss or destruction of the original checks through the Affidavit of the one person who
knew of that fact -- Yabut. He clearly admitted to discarding the paid checks to cover up his misdeed. In such a situation,
secondary evidence like microfilm copies may be introduced in court.

Consolidated Bank v. Del Monte Motor Works

-no copy

     

Enriquez v. Ramos

The RTC erred in admitting parole evidence to prove a contemporaneous oral agreement among between the parties relative
to the construction of roads. For if the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing it is considered to contain all the
terms of agreement between the parties.

However, this rule will only hold true if there is no allegation that the agreement does not express the true intent of the
parties. For if there is and this claim is put in issue in the pleadings the same may be subject to parole evidence. The fact that
the failure of the agreement to contain the terms of the agreement among the parties has been put in issue in this case and has
been specifically pleaded.

The fact that Enriquez failed to comply with a condition precedent (i.e. the construction of roads) embodied in the contract of
sale, the action to foreclose the REM is premature.

Canuto v. Mariano

The Supreme Court held that parole evidence can be admitted to determine the true intent of the parties in cases where there
is a clear subsequent agreement that adds, modifies, changes or even altogether abrogating the Contract of Sale that reduced
their agreement into writing.

For, the parole evidence does not in anyway deny that the original agreement of he parties which the writing purports to
express, but merely goes to show that the parties have exercised their right to change or abrogate the same, or to make a new
and independent contract. It makes no difference how soon after the execution of the written contract the parol one was
made. If it was in fact subsequent and is otherwise unobjectionable it may be proved and enforced.
The extension of the period of repurchase is upheld in this case, as the oral agreement between Canuto and Mariano changed
the earlier agreed due date of December 4, 1914 to December 31, 1914. The tender of money of Canuto within that time
period is considered sufficient to prove that she intends to repurchase her parcel of land from Mariano.

Yu Tek v. Gonzales

The RTC erred in ruling that the sugar to be delivered should come from Gonzalesǯ hacienda, as his crop was totally destroyed
he cannot comply with such an agreement. But, the agreement does not stipulate that sugar to be delivered should come
solely from Gonzalesǯ plantation. Therefore, Gonzales should have procured sugar somewhere else and delivered such to Yu
Tek & Co. in compliance with their agreement. It is clear in the agreement that the sugar referred to is generic, as genum never
perishes Gonzales should have procured the sugar sought to be delivered, to construe such obligation there is no need to admit
parole evidence to explain, change, modify or alter the terms of agreement between the parties. The agreement in itself is
sufficient to represent the true intent of the parties.

Land Settlement v. Garcia Plantation

The Supreme Court held that failure of the Garcia spouses to comply with the condition precedent stated in the letter which is
the payment of a substantial downpayment means that the extension for payment is deemed not made. Hence, the collection
for sum of money is not premature as there was no extension for payment of the balance, therefore, the obligation is deemed
due and demandable.

The rule excluding parole evidence to vary or contradict writings of parties does not extend so far as to preclude the admission
of extrinsic evidence, to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parole agreement between the parties, but such evidence
may be received, regardless of whether or not the written agreement contains reference to such collateral agreement.

Maulini v. Serrano

The Supreme Court held that in the case at bar the parole evidence presented was meant to show that no contract of
indorsement ever existed; that the minds of the parties never met on the terms of such contract; that they never mutually
agreed to enter into such contract; and that there existed a consideration upon which an agreement can be founded.

The evidence was not offered to vary. alter, modify, or contradict the terms of an agreement which is admitted to have
existed between the parties but to deny there was ever an agreement between the parties; to wipe out all apparent relations
between the parties, and not to vary, alter or contradict the terms of a relation between the parties.

PNB v. Seeto

The supposed assurances of refund in case of dishonor are precisely the ordinary obligations of an indorser. There was no
express obligation assumed by Seeto that he, as an indorser, would refund the amount of the check even if there was delay in
its presentation. However, under the Negotiable Instruments Law, the liability of a general indorser is that he will pay the
amount thereof to the holder, in case it is dishonored.

Parol evidence on the obligations of an indorser would therefore be admissible. The assurances are but merely expressions of
the obligations of the indorser as prescribed in Section 66 of said law.

Woodhouse v. Halili

The act or statement of the Woodhouse was not sought to be introduced to change or alter the terms of the agreement, but to
prove how he induced Halili to enter into it, to prove the representations or inducements, or fraud, with which or by which he
secured the other party's consent thereto. These are expressly excluded, from the parol evidence rule.

Robles v. Lizzaraga Cruz

The case involves the enforcement of an independent or collateral agreement which constituted an inducement to the making
of the sale, or part of the consideration therefor. The general rule is that extrinsic evidence is inadmissible either to contradict
or vary the terms of a written contract. The execution of a contract in writing is deemed to supersede all oral negotiation or
stipulations concerning its terms and the subject-matter which preceded the execution of the instrument, in the absence of
accident, fraud or mistake of fact.
However, it is recognized that the rule excluding parol evidence to vary or contradict a writing does not extend so far as to
preclude the admission of extrinsic evidence to show prior or contemporaneous collateral parol agreements between the
parties. Such evidence may be received, regardless of whether or not the written agreement contains any reference to such
collateral agreement.

The rule that a preliminary or contemporaneous oral agreement is not admissible to vary a written contract refers to the
obligation expressed in the written agreement. It does not apply to matters of consideration or inducement. In this case, the
deed of conveyance is complete in itself; the oral agreement is also complete in itself, and it is collateral to the written contract,
notwithstanding the fact that it deals with related matters.

The disputed deed of conveyance purports to transfer to Hermanos certain properties. However, nothing is said concerning
Roblesǯ rights in the hacienda which he acquired by lease or the improvements placed thereon. The verbal contract which the
plaintiff has established in this case is therefore clearly independent of the main contract of conveyance, and evidence of such
verbal contract is admissible.

Cruz v. CA

The parole evidence is not applicable in the case at bar. The rule is predicated on the existence of a document
embodying the terms of an agreement, but the receipt only attested to the fact that Cruz received P35,000 from Salonga. It is
not and could not have been intended by the parties to be the sole memorial of their agreement. As a matter of fact, the receipt
does not even mention the transaction that gave rise to its issuance. At most, the receipt can only be considered a casual
memorandum of a transaction between the parties and an acknowledgement of the receipt of money executed by Cruz for
Salongaǯs satisfaction. A writing of this nature, is not covered by the Parol Evidence Rule.

Lechugas v. CA

Lechugasǯ reliance on the parol evidence rule is misplaced. The rule is not applicable where the controversy is between one of
the parties to the document and third persons. The deed of sale was executed by Lasangue in favor of Lechugas. However, the
dispute over what was actually sold is between Lechugas and the Lozas. Hence, Lasangue is a stranger to the dispute, and is
not bound by the parol evidence rule.

Inciong v. CA

Inciong can adduce parol evidence to prove a contemporaneous agreement that was the inducing and moving cause of the
written contract. Inciong can thus, prove by alleging fraud that he and his co-makers agreed to a loan of P5,000.00 only.
However, fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence. This, Inciong failed to do because his testimony was
uncorroborated.
The parole evidence rule does not specify that the written agreement be a public document.

Ortanez v. CA

The Rules on Evidence provides 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, between the parties and their 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 an interested party and based solely on human
memory which is fleeting and inaccurate.

Lapu Lapu Foundation v. CA

Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the
operation of a valid contract.While parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve the
purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in writing,
unless there has been fraud or mistake

Baluyot v. People

-no copy