THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 107372. January 23, 1997.] RAFAEL S. ORTAEZ, Petitioner, v.

THE COURT OF APPEALS, OSCAR INOCENTES, and ASUNCION LLANES INOCENTES, Respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; PAROL EVIDENCE RULE; WHEN THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT WERE REDUCED TO WRITING, IT IS DEEMED TO CONTAIN ALL THE TERMS AGREED UPON. Private respondents oral testimony on the alleged conditions, coming from a party who has an interest in the outcome of the case, depending exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence. Spoken words could be notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract which speaks of a uniform language. Thus, under the general rule in Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the terms of an agreement were reduced to writing, as in this case, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such terms can be admitted other than the contents thereof. Considering that the written deeds of sale were the only repository of the truth, whatever is not found in said instruments must have been waived and abandoned by the parties. Examining the deeds of sale, we cannot even make an inference that the sale was subject to any condition. As a contract, it is the law between the parties. 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. CASE (117 PHIL. [1963], NOT APPLICABLE TO CASE AT BAR. To buttress their argument, private respondents rely on the case of Land Settlement and Development Corp. v. Garcia Plantation where the Court ruled that a condition precedent to a contract may be established by parol evidence. However, the material facts of the case are different from this case. In the former, the contract sought to be enforced expressly stated that it is subject to an agreement containing the conditions-precedent which were proven through parol evidence. Whereas, the deeds of sale in this case, made no reference to any preconditions or other agreement. In fact, the sale is denominated as absolute in its own terms. 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CANNOT VARY, CONTRADICT OR DEFEAT THE OPERATION OF A VALID INSTRUMENT. The parol evidence herein sought to be introduced would vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid instrument, hence, contrary to the rule that: "The parol evidence rule forbids any addition . . . the terms of a written instrument by testimony purporting to show that, at or before the signing of the document, other or different terms were orally agreed upon by the parties."
cralaw virtua1aw li bra ry

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CANNOT INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL CONTEMPORANEOUS CONDITIONS. Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract, "it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing unless there has been fraud or mistake." No such fraud or mistake exists in this case. 5. ID.; ID.; ID.; INADMISSIBLE WHERE THE CONTRACTS ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS. We disagree with private respondents argument that their parol evidence is admissible under the exceptions provided by the Rules, specifically, the alleged failure of the agreement to express the true intent of the parties. In this case, the deeds of sale are clear, without any ambiguity, mistake or imperfection, much less obscurity or doubt in the terms thereof. 6. ID.; ID.; ID.; GROUND THEREFOR MUST BE EXPRESSLY PLEADED. We are not persuaded by private respondents contention that they "put in issue by the pleadings" the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the parties. Record shows that private respondents did not expressly plead that the deeds of sale were incomplete or that it did not reflect the intention of the buyer (petitioner) and the seller (private respondents). Such issue must be "squarely presented." Private respondents merely alleged that the sale was subject to four (4) conditions which they tried to prove during trial by parol evidence.

Obviously, this cannot be done, because they did not plead any of the exceptions mentioned in the parol evidence rule. Their case is covered by the general rule that the contents of the writing are the only repository of the terms of the agreement. Considering that private respondent Oscar Inocentes is a lawyer (and former Judge) he was "supposed to be steeped in legal knowledge and practices" and was "expected to know the consequences" of his signing a deed of absolute sale. Had he given an iotas attention to scrutinize the deeds, he would have incorporated important stipulations that the transfer of title to said lots were conditional.

RESOLUTION

FRANCISCO, J.:

On September 30, 1982, private respondents sold to petitioner two (2) parcels of registered land in Quezon City for a consideration of P35,000.00 and P20,000.00, respectively. The first deed of absolute sale covering Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 258628 provides in part:
jg c:chan roble s.com.p h

"That for and in consideration of the sum of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND (P35,000.00) PESOS, receipt of which in full is hereby acknowledged, we have sold, transferred and conveyed, as we hereby sell, transfer and convey, that subdivided portion of the property covered by TCT No. 258628 known as Lot No. 684-G-1-B-2 in favor of RAFAEL S. ORTANEZ, of legal age, Filipino, whose marriage is under a regime of complete separation of property, and a resident of 942 Aurora Blvd., Quezon City, his heirs or assigns." 1 while the second deed of absolute sale covering TCT No. 243273 provides:
c han rob1es v irt ual 1aw l ibra ry

That for and in consideration of the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS receipt of which in full is hereby acknowledged, we have sold, transferred and conveyed, as we hereby sell, transfer and convey, that consolidated-subdivided portion of the property covered by TCT No. 243273 known as Lot No. 5 in favor of RAFAEL S. ORTAEZ, of legal age, Filipino, whose marriage is under a regime of complete separation of property, and a resident of 942 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City his heirs or assigns. 2 Private respondents received the payments for the above-mentioned lots, but failed to deliver the titles to petitioner. On April 9, 1990 the latter demanded from the former the delivery of said titles. 3 Private respondents, however, refused on the ground that the title of the first lot is in the possession of another person, 4 and petitioners acquisition of the title of the other lot is subject to certain conditions. Offshoot, petitioner sued private respondents for specific performance before the RTC. In their answer with counterclaim private respondents merely alleged the existence of the following oral conditions 5 which were never reflected in the deeds of sale: 6 "3.3.2 Title to the other property (TCT No. 243273) remains with the defendants (private respondents) until plaintiff (petitioner) shows proof that all the following requirements have been met:
chan rob1e s virtual 1aw lib rary

(i) Plaintiff will cause the segregation of his right of way amounting to 398 sq. m.; (ii) Plaintiff will submit to the defendants the approved plan for the segregation; (iii) Plaintiff will put up a strong wall between his property and that of defendants lot to segregate his right of way; (iv) Plaintiff will pay the capital gains tax and all other expenses that may be incurred by reason of sale. . . .

During trial, private respondent Oscar Inocentes, a former judge, orally testified that the sale was subject to the above conditions, 7 although such conditions were not incorporated in the deeds of sale. Despite petitioners timely objections on the ground that the introduction of said oral conditions was barred by the parol evidence rule, the lower court nonetheless, admitted them and eventually dismissed the complaint as well as the counterclaim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the court a quo. Hence, this petition. We are tasked to resolve the issue on the admissibility of parol evidence to establish the alleged oral conditions-precedent to a contract of sale, when the deeds of sale are silent on such conditions. The parol evidence herein introduced is inadmissible. First, private respondents oral testimony on the alleged conditions, coming from a party who has an interest in the outcome of the case, depending exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence. 8 Spoken words could be notoriously unreliable unlike a written contract which speaks of a uniform language. 9 Thus, under the general rule in Section 9 of Rule 130 10 of the Rules of Court, when the terms of an agreement were reduced to writing, as in this case, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of such terms can be admitted other than the contents thereof. 11 Considering that the written deeds of sale were the only repository of the truth, whatever is not found in said instruments must have been waived and abandoned by the parties. 12 Examining the deeds of sale, we cannot even make an inference that the sale was subject to any condition. As a contract, it is the law between the parties. 13 Secondly, to buttress their argument, private respondents rely on the case of Land Settlement Development, Co. v. Garcia Plantation 14 where the Court ruled that a condition precedent to a contract may be established by parol evidence. However, the material facts of that case are different from this case. In the former, the contract sought to be enforced 15 expressly stated that it is subject to an agreement containing the conditions-precedent which were proven through parol evidence. Whereas, the deeds of sale in this case, made no reference to any pre-conditions or other agreement. In fact, the sale is denominated as absolute in its own terms.
chanrob lesvi rtua llawlib rary

Third, the parol evidence herein sought to be introduced would vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid instrument, 16 hence, contrary to the rule that:
chanrob 1es vi rtua l 1aw lib rary

The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to . . . the terms of a written instrument by testimony purporting to show that, at or before the signing of the document, other or different terms were orally agreed upon by the parties. 17 Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract, "it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing unless there has been fraud or mistake." 18 No such fraud or mistake exists in this case. Fourth, we disagree with private respondents argument that their parol evidence is admissible under the exceptions provided by the Rules, specifically, the alleged failure of the agreement to express the true intent of the parties. Such exception obtains only in the following instance:
cha nrob 1es vi rtua l 1aw lib ra ry

[W]here the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the contractual intention of the parties cannot be understood from a mere reading of the instrument. In such a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of the contract, of the relations of the parties to each other, and of the facts and circumstances surrounding them when they entered into the contract may be received to enable the court to make a proper interpretation of the instrument. 19 In this case, the deeds of sale are clear, without any ambiguity, mistake or imperfection, much less obscurity or doubt in the terms thereof. Fifth, we are not persuaded by private respondents contention that they "put in issue by

the pleadings" the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent of the parties. Record shows 20 that private respondents did not expressly plead that the deeds of sale were incomplete or that it did not reflect the intention 21 of the buyer (petitioner) and the seller (private respondents). Such issue must be "squarely presented." 22 Private respondents merely alleged that the sale was subject to four (4) conditions which they tried to prove during trial by parol evidence. 23 Obviously, this cannot be done, because they did not plead any of the exceptions mentioned in the parol evidence rule. 24 Their case is covered by the general rule that the contents of the writing are the only repository of the terms of the agreement. Considering that private respondent Oscar Inocentes is a lawyer (and former judge) he was "supposed to be steeped in legal knowledge and practices" and was expected to know the consequences" 25 of his signing a deed of absolute sale. Had he given an iotas attention to scrutinize the deeds, he would have incorporated important stipulations that the transfer of title to said lots were conditional. 26 One last thing, assuming arguendo that the parol evidence is admissible, it should nonetheless be disbelieved as no other evidence appears from the record to sustain the existence of the alleged conditions. Not even the other seller, Asuncion Inocentes, was presented to testify on such conditions. ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision is REVERSED and the records of this case REMANDED to the trial court for proper disposition in accordance with this ruling. SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 164326 October 17, 2008

SEAOIL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. AUTOCORP GROUP and PAUL Y. RODRIGUEZ, respondents. DECISION NACHURA, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision1of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 20, 2004 in CA-G.R. CV No. 72193, which had affirmed in toto the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 157, dated September 10, 2001 in Civil Case No. 64943. The factual antecedents, as summarized by the CA, are as follows: On September 24, 1994, defendant-appellant Seaoil Petroleum Corporation (Seaoil, for brevity) purchased one unit of ROBEX 200 LC Excavator, Model 1994 from plaintiff-appellee Autocorp Group (Autocorp for short). The original cost of the unit was P2,500,000.00 but was increased toP3,112,519.94 because it was paid in 12 monthly installments up to September 30, 1995. The sales agreement was embodied in the Vehicle Sales Invoice No. A-0209 and Vehicle Sales Confirmation No.

258. Both documents were signed by Francis Yu (Yu for short), president of Seaoil, on behalf of said corporation. Furthermore, it was agreed that despite delivery of the excavator, ownership thereof was to remain with Autocorp until the obligation is fully settled. In this light, Seaoils contractor, Romeo Valera, issued 12 postdated checks. However, Autocorp refused to accept the checks because they were not under Seaoils name. Hence, Yu, on behalf of Seaoil, signed and issued 12 postdated checks for P259,376.62 each with Autocorp as payee. The excavator was subsequently delivered on September 26, 1994 by Autocorp and was received by Seaoil in its depot in Batangas. The relationship started to turn sour when the first check bounced. However, it was remedied when Seaoil replaced it with a good check. The second check likewise was also good when presented for payment. However, the remaining 10 checks were not honored by the bank since Seaoil requested that payment be stopped. It was downhill from thereon. Despite repeated demands, Seaoil refused to pay the remaining balance of P2,593,766.20. Hence, on January 24, 1995, Autocorp filed a complaint for recovery of personal property with damages and replevin in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. The trial court ruled for Autocorp. Hence, this appeal. Seaoil, on the other hand, alleges that the transaction is not as simple as described above. It claims that Seaoil and Autocorp were only utilized as conduits to settle the obligation of one foreign entity named Uniline Asia (herein referred to as Uniline), in favor of another foreign entity, Focus Point International, Incorporated (Focus for short). Paul Rodriguez (Rodriguez for brevity) is a stockholder and director of Autocorp. He is also the owner of Uniline. On the other hand, Yu is the president and stockholder of Seaoil and is at the same time owner of Focus. Allegedly, Uniline chartered MV Asia Property (sic) in the amount of $315,711.71 from its owner Focus. Uniline was not able to settle the said amount. Hence, Uniline, through Rodriguez, proposed to settle the obligation through conveyance of vehicles and heavy equipment. Consequently, four units of Tatamobile pick-up trucks procured from Autocorp were conveyed to Focus as partial payment. The excavator in controversy was allegedly one part of the vehicles conveyed to Focus. Seaoil claims that Rodriguez initially issued 12 postdated checks in favor of Autocorp as payment for the excavator. However, due to the fact that it was company policy for Autocorp not to honor postdated checks issued by its own directors, Rodriguez requested Yu to issue 12 PBCOM postdated checks in favor of Autocorp. In turn, said checks would be funded by the corresponding 12 Monte de Piedad postdated checks issued by Rodriguez. These Monte de

Piedad checks were postdated three days prior to the maturity of the PBCOM checks. Seaoil claims that Rodriguez issued a stop payment order on the ten checks thus constraining the former to also order a stop payment order on the PBCOM checks. In short, Seaoil claims that the real transaction is that Uniline, through Rodriguez, owed money to Focus. In lieu of payment, Uniline instead agreed to convey the excavator to Focus. This was to be paid by checks issued by Seaoil but which in turn were to be funded by checks issued by Uniline. x x x3 As narrated above, respondent Autocorp filed a Complaint for Recovery of Personal Property with Damages and Replevin4 against Seaoil before the RTC of Pasig City. In its September 10, 2001 Decision, the RTC ruled that the transaction between Autocorp and Seaoil was a simple contract of sale payable in installments.5 It also held that the obligation to pay plaintiff the remainder of the purchase price of the excavator solely devolves on Seaoil. Paul Rodriguez, not being a party to the sale of the excavator, could not be held liable therefor. The decretal portion of the trial courts Decision reads, thus: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff Autocorp Group and against defendant Seaoil Petroleum Corporation which is hereby directed to pay plaintiff: - P2,389,179.23 plus 3% interest from the time of judicial demand until full payment; and - 25% of the total amount due as attorneys fees and cost of litigation. The third-party complaint filed by defendant Seaoil Petroleum Corporation against third-party defendant Paul Rodriguez is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Seaoil filed a Petition for Review before the CA. In its assailed Decision, the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTCs Decision in toto.6 It held that the transaction between Yu and Rodriguez was merely verbal. This cannot alter the sales contract between Seaoil and Autocorp as this will run counter to the parol evidence rule which prohibits the introduction of oral and parol evidence to modify the terms of the contract. The claim that it falls under the exceptions to the parol evidence rule has not been sufficiently proven. Moreover, it held that Autocorps separate corporate

personality cannot be disregarded and the veil of corporate fiction pierced. Seaoil was not able to show that Autocorp was merely an alter ego of Uniline or that both corporations were utilized to perpetrate a fraud. Lastly, it held that the RTC was correct in dismissing the third-party complaint since it did not arise out of the same transaction on which the plaintiffs claim is based, or that the third partys claim, although arising out of another transaction, is connected to the plaintiffs claim. Besides, the CA said, such claim may be enforced in a separate action. Seaoil now comes before this Court in a Petition for Review raising the following issues: I Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in partially applying the parol evidence rule to prove only some terms contained in one portion of the document but disregarded the rule with respect to another but substantial portion or entry also contained in the same document which should have proven the true nature of the transaction involved. II Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in its judgment based on misapprehension of facts when it declared absence of facts which are contradicted by presence of evidence on record. III Whether or not the dismissal of the third-party complaint would have the legal effect of res judicata as would unjustly preclude petitioner from enforcing its claim against respondent Rodriguez (third-party defendant) in a separate action. IV Whether or not, given the facts in evidence, the lower courts should have pierced the corporate veil. The Petition lacks merit. We sustain the ruling of the CA. We find no fault in the trial courts appreciation of the facts of this case. The findings of fact of the trial court are conclusive upon this Court, especially when affirmed by the CA. None of the exceptions to this wellsettled rule has been shown to exist in this case.

Petitioner does not question the validity of the vehicle sales invoice but merely argues that the same does not reflect the true agreement of the parties. However, petitioner only had its bare testimony to back up the alleged arrangement with Rodriguez. The Monte de Piedad checks the supposedly "clear and obvious link"7 between the documentary evidence and the true transaction between the parties are equivocal at best. There is nothing in those checks to establish such link. Rodriguez denies that there is such an agreement. Unsubstantiated testimony, offered as proof of verbal agreements which tends to vary the terms of a written agreement, is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule.8 Rule 130, Section 9 of the Revised Rules on Evidence embodies the parol evidence rule and states: SEC. 9. Evidence of written agreements.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. However, 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: (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; or (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 forbids any addition to, or contradiction of, the terms of a written agreement by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written contract.9

This principle notwithstanding, petitioner would have the Court rule that this case falls within the exceptions, particularly that the written agreement failed to express the true intent and agreement of the parties. This argument is untenable. Although parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of a contract, it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing unless there has been fraud or mistake.10 Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid contract.11 The Vehicle Sales Invoice12 is the best evidence of the transaction. A sales invoice is a commercial document. Commercial documents or papers are those used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions.13 Business forms, e.g., order slip, delivery charge invoice and the like, are commonly recognized in ordinary commercial transactions as valid between the parties and, at the very least, they serve as an acknowledgment that a business transaction has in fact transpired.14 These documents are not mere scraps of paper bereft of probative value, but vital pieces of evidence of commercial transactions. They are written memorials of the details of the consummation of contracts.15 The terms of the subject sales invoice are clear. They show that Autocorp sold to Seaoil one unit Robex 200 LC Excavator paid for by checks issued by one Romeo Valera. This does not, however, change the fact that Seaoil Petroleum Corporation, as represented by Yu, is the customer or buyer. The moment a party affixes his or her signature thereon, he or she is bound by all the terms stipulated therein and is subject to all the legal obligations that may arise from their breach.16 Oral testimony on the alleged conditions, coming from a party who has an interest in the outcome of the case, depending exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence. 17 Hence, petitioners contention that the document falls within the exception to the parol evidence rule is untenable. The exception obtains only where "the written contract is so ambiguous or obscure in terms that the contractual intention of the parties cannot be understood from a mere reading of the instrument. In such a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter of the contract, of the relations of the parties to each other, and of the facts and circumstances surrounding them when they entered into the contract may be received to enable the court to make a proper interpretation of the instrument."18

Even assuming there is a shred of truth to petitioners contention, the same cannot be made a basis for holding respondents liable therefor. As pointed out by the CA, Rodriguez is a person separate and independent from Autocorp. Whatever obligations Rodriguez contracted cannot be attributed to Autocorp19 and vice versa. In fact, the obligation that petitioner proffers as its defense under the Lease Purchase Agreement was not even incurred by Rodriguez or by Autocorp but by Uniline. The Lease Purchase Agreement20 clearly shows that the parties thereto are two corporations not parties to this case: Focus Point and Uniline. Under this Lease Purchase Agreement, it is Uniline, as lessee/purchaser, and not Rodriguez, that incurred the debt to Focus Point. The obligation of Uniline to Focus Point arose out of a transaction completely different from the subject of the instant case. It is settled that a corporation has a personality separate and distinct from its individual stockholders or members, and is not affected by the personal rights, obligations and transactions of the latter.21 The corporation may not be held liable for the obligations of the persons composing it, and neither can its stockholders be held liable for its obligation.22 Of course, this Court has recognized instances when the corporations separate personality may be disregarded. However, we have also held that the same may only be done in cases where the corporate vehicle is being used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime.23 Moreover, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly established. It cannot be presumed.24 To reiterate, the transaction under the Vehicle Sales Invoice is separate and distinct from that under the Lease Purchase Agreement. In the former, it is Seaoil that owes Autocorp, while in the latter, Uniline incurred obligations to Focus. There was never any allegation, much less any evidence, that Autocorp was merely an alter ego of Uniline, or that the two corporations separate personalities were being used as a means to perpetrate fraud or wrongdoing. Moreover, Rodriguez, as stockholder and director of Uniline, cannot be held personally liable for the debts of the corporation, which has a separate legal personality of its own. While Section 31 of the Corporation Code25 lays down the exceptions to the rule, the same does not apply in this case. Section 31 makes a director personally liable for corporate debts if he willfully and knowingly votes for or assents to patently unlawful acts of the corporation. Section 31 also makes a director personally liable if he is guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the

corporation.26 The bad faith or wrongdoing of the director must be established clearly and convincingly. Bad faith is never presumed.27 The burden of proving bad faith or wrongdoing on the part of Rodriguez was, on petitioner, a burden which it failed to discharge. Thus, it was proper for the trial court to have dismissed the third-party complaint against Rodriguez on the ground that he was not a party to the sale of the excavator. Rule 6, Section 11 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure defines a third-party complaint as a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action, called the third-party defendant, for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponents claim. The purpose of the rule is to permit a defendant to assert an independent claim against a third party which he, otherwise, would assert in another action, thus preventing multiplicity of suits.28 Had it not been for the rule, the claim could have been filed separately from the original complaint. 29 Petitioners claim against Rodriguez was fully ventilated in the proceedings before the trial court, tried and decided on its merits. The trial courts ruling operates as res judicata against another suit involving the same parties and same cause of action. This is rightly so because the trial court found that Rodriguez was not a party to the sale of the excavator. On the other hand, petitioner Seaoils liability has been successfully established by respondent. A last point. We reject Seaoils claim that "the ownership of the subject excavator, having been legally and completely transferred to Focus Point International, Inc., cannot be subject of replevin and plaintiff [herein respondent Autocorp] is not legally entitled to any writ of replevin." 30 The claim is negated by the sales invoice which clearly states that "[u]ntil after the vehicle is fully paid inclusive of bank clearing time, it remains the property of Autocorp Group which reserves the right to take possession of said vehicle at any time and place without prior notice." 31 Considering, first, that Focus Point was not a party to the sale of the excavator and, second, that Seaoil indeed failed to pay for the excavator in full, the same still rightfully belongs to Autocorp. Additionally, as the trial court found, Seaoil had already assigned the same to its contractor for the construction of its depot in Batangas.32Hence, Seaoil has already enjoyed the benefit of the transaction even as it has not complied with its obligation. It cannot be permitted to unjustly enrich itself at the expense of another.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 20, 2004 in CA-G.R. CV No. 72193 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. L-39972 & L-40300 August 6, 1986 VICTORIA LECHUGAS, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MARINA LOZA, SALVADOR LOZA, ISIDRO LOZA, CARMELITA LOZA, DAVID LOZA, AMPARO LOZA, ERLINDA LOZA and ALEJANDRA LOZA, respondents. A.R. Montemayor for petitioner. Arturo L. Limoso for private respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J: This petition for review invokes the parol evidence rule as it imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the appellate court for admitting and giving credence to the testimony of the vendor regarding the sale of the disputed lot. The testimony is contrary to the contents of the deed of sale executed by the vendor in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a complaint for forcible entry with damages against the private respondents, alleging that the latter by means of force, intimidation, strategy and stealth, unlawfully entered lots A and B, corresponding to the middle and northern portion of the property owned by the petitioner known as Lot No. 5456. She alleged that they appropriated the produce thereof for themselves, and refused to surrender the possession of the same despite demands made by the petitioner. The complaint was dismissed. Petitioner appealed to the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 5055. While the above appeal was pending, the petitioner instituted another action before the CFI of Iloilo for recovery and possession of the same property against the private respondents. This case was docketed as Civil Case No. 5303. The two cases were tried jointly. After trial, the court rendered judgment. The dispositive portion of the decision states: Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is rendered, to wit: a. dismissing the complaints in two cases;

b. declaring defendants except Salvador Anona and Jose Lozada as owners and lawful possessors of the land in question together with all the improvements thereon; c. dismissing the claim for damages of all defendants except that of Jose Lozada; d. ordering plaintiff to pay defendant Jose Lozada the sum of P500.00 as attorney's fees and the amount of P300.00 as litigation expenses; and e. ordering plaintiff to pay the costs of both proceedings. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals but the latter sustained the dismissal of the cases. Hence, this petition with the petitioner making the following assignments of errors: I THAT THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING PAROL EVIDENCE OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE PETITIONER IN ORDER TO VARY THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DEED OF DEFINITE SALE (EXHIBIT A) ALTHOUGH THE LAND THEREIN IS DESCRIBED AND DELIMITED BY METES AND BOUNDS AND IdENTIFIED AS LOT NO. 5456 OF LAMBUNAO CADASTRE. II THAT THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE THEORY OF THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL THAT THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED OF SALE (EXHIBIT A) IS LOT NO. 5522 INSTEAD OF LOT NO. 5456 OF THE LAMBUNAO CADASTRE, THEIR ORIGINAL THEORY BEING THAT THE DEED OF SALE (EXHIBIT A) IS NULL AND VOID AB INITIO BECAUSE LEONCIA LASANGUE CAN NOT SELL THE LAND IN QUESTION IN 1950 SINCE IT WAS ALLEGEDLY SOLD IN 1941 BY HER FATHER EMETERIO LASANGUE. III THAT THE RESPONDENT COURT CANNOT REFORM THE DEED OF DEFINITE SALE BY CHANGING ITS SUBJECT MATTER IN THE ABSENCE OF STRONG, CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE AND ON THE STRENGTH OF LONG TESTIMONY OF THE VENDOR AND ALTHOUGH NO DIRECT ACTION FOR REFORMATION WAS FILED IN THE COURT OF ORIGIN. A summary of the facts which brought about the controversy is contained in the findings of the appellate court:

Plaintiff (petitioner) Victoria Lechugas testified that she bought the land now subject of this litigation from Leoncia Lasangue as evidenced by a public "Deed of Absolute Sale" which plaintiff had caused to be registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds; preparatory to the execution of the deed Exhibit "A", plaintiff had the land segregated from the bigger portion of 12 hectares owned by Leoncia Lasangue by contracting a private land surveyor, the Sirilan Surveying Office, to survey the land on December 3, 1950 and establish its boundaries, shape, form and area in accordance with the said plan which was attached to exhibit A as Annex A thereof. She also states that she caused the declaration of the said portion of six hectares subject of Exhibit A in her name beginning the year 1951 under tax declaration No. 7912, paid taxes on the same land, and has taken possession of the land through her tenants Jesus Leoncio, Roberta Losarita and Simeon Guinta, who shared one-half of the produce of the riceland with her, while she shouldered some of the expenses in cultivation and seeds, and one-third share in other crops, like coffee beans, bamboos, coconuts, corn and the like. xxx xxx xxx Plaintiff's declaration is corroborated by her tenant Simeon Guinta who testifies that the land subject of the complaint was worked on by him 1954 when its former tenant, Roberto Lazarita, now deceased, left the land. As tenant thereof, he planted rice, corn peanuts, coffee, and other minor products, sharing the same with the owner, plaintiff Victoria Lechugas; that on June 14, 1958, while witness was plowing Lot A preparatory to rice planting, defendants entered the land and forced him to stop his work. Salvador Anona and Carmelita Losa, particularly, told witness that if he (witness) would sign an affidavit recognizing them as his landlords, they would allow him to continue plowing the land. On that occasion, Salvador Anona, David Loza and Jose Loza were carrying unsheathed bolos, which made this witness very afraid, so much so that he left the land and reported the matter to Victoria Lechugas who reportedly went to the Chief of Police of Lambunao to ask the latter to intervene. The advise however of the chief of police, who responded to the call of plaintiff, was not heeded by the defendants who stayed adamantly on Lot A and refused to surrender the possession thereof to plaintiff appropriating the harvest to themselves. This witness further declares that on June 24, 1958, defendants entered Lot B of the land in question, situated on the northern portion, and cut the bamboo poles growing thereof counted by plaintiff's brother and overseer in the land, Bienvenido Laranja, to be 620 bamboo poles all in all. Despite the warning of the overseer Laranja, defendants did not stop cutting the bamboos, and they remained on the land, refusing to leave the same. To top it all, in June of 1959, defendants, not contended with just occupying the middle and northern portions of the land (Lots A and B), grabbed the whole parcel containing six hectares to the damage and prejudice of herein plaintiff, so that plaintiff was left with no other recourse but to file Civil Case No. 5303 for ownership, recovery of possession and damages.

Defendants, on the other hand, maintain that the land which plaintiff bought from Leoncia Lasangue in 1950 as evidenced by the deed exhibit A, is different from the land now subject of this action, and described in paragraph 2 of plaintiff's complaint. To prove this point, defendants called as their first witness plaintiff herself (pp. 6167, t.s.n., Tuble), to elicit from her the reason why it was that although her vendor Leoncia Lasangue was also residing at the municipality of Lambunao, Iloilo, plaintiff did not care to call her to the witness stand to testify regarding the Identity of the land which she (plaintiff) bought from said vendor Leoncia Lasangue; to which query witness Lechugas countered that she had tried to call her vendor, but the latter refused, saying that she (Lasangue) had already testified in plaintiff's favor in the forcible entry case in the Justice of the Peace Court. In connection with her testimony regarding the true Identity of the land plaintiff, as witness of defendants, stated that before the execution of Exhibit "A" on December 8, 1950 the lot in question was surveyed (on December 3, 1950) by the Sirilan Surveyor Company after due notice to the boundary owners including Leoncia Lasangue. Defendant's evidence in chief, as testified to by Carmelita Lozada (pp. 100-130, t.s.n., Trespeces; pp. 131-192, t.s.n., Tuble) shows that on April 6, 1931 Hugo Loza father of Carmelita Loza and predecessor-in-interest of the rest of the heirs of herein defendants, (with the exception of Jose Loza and Salvador Anona) purchased a parcel of land from one Victorina Limor as evidenced by the deed "Venta Definitiva" (exhibit 3, pp. 49-50, folder of exhibits). This land, containing 53,327 square meters is bounded on the north by Ramon Lasangue, on the south by Emeterio Lasangue and covered by tax declaration No. 7346 (exhibit 3-9, p. 67, Id.) in vendor's name; that immediately after the sale, Hugo Loza took possession of the said parcel of land and declared the same in his name (exhibit 3-10, p. 67, folder of exhibits) starting the year 1935. On March 17, 1941, Hugo Loza bought from Emeterio Lasangue a parcel of land with an area of four hectares more or less, adjoining the land he (Loza) had earlier bought from Victoria Limor, and which sale was duly evidenced by a public instrument (exhibit 2, pp. 35-36, folder of exhibits). This property had the following boundaries, to wit: on the north by Eladio Luno, on the south, by Simeon Lasangue, on the west, by Gregorio Militar and Emeterio Lasangue and on the east, by Maximo Lasangue and Hipolito Lastica (exhibit 2, exhibit 2-B, p. 37, Id). After the execution of the deed of sale, Exhibit 2, Hugo Loza cause the transfer of the declaration in his own name (tax declaration No. 8832, exh. 2C, p. 38, Id.) beginning 1945, and started paying the taxes on the land (exhibits 2-d to 2-i, pp. 39-44, Id.). These two parcels of land (that purchased by Hugo Loza in 1941 from Emeterio Lasangue, and a portion of that bought by him from Victoria Limor sometime in 1931) were consolidated and designated, during the cadastral survey of Lambunao, Iloilo in 1959 as Lot No. 5456; while the remaining portion of the lot bought from Victorina Limor, adjoining Lot 5456 on the east, was designated as Lot No. 5515 in the name of the Heirs of Hugo Loza. Defendants claim that the lot bought by plaintiff from Leoncia Lasangue as evidenced by exhibit A, is situated south of the land now

subject of this action and designated during cadastral survey of Lambunao as Lot No. 5522, in the name of Victoria Lechugas. xxx xxx xxx Leoncia Lasangue, plaintiff's vendor in exhibit A, testifying for defendants (pp. 182-115, t.s.n., Tambagan; pp. 69-88, t.s.n., Tuble) declared that during his lifetime her father, Emeterio Lasangue, owned a parcel of land in Lambunao, Iloilo, containing an area of 36 hectares; that said Emeterio Lasangue sold a slice of 4 hectares of this property to Hugo Loza evidenced by a deed of sale (Exh. 2) dated March 17, 1941; that other sales were made to other persons, leaving only some twelve hectares out of the original 36; that these 12 hectares were transferred by her parents in her (witness) name, being the only child and heir; that on December 8, 1950, she (Leoncia Lasangue) sold six hectares of her inherited property to Victoria Lechugas under a public instrument (exhibit A) which was prepared at the instance of Victoria Lechugas and thumbmarked by herself (the vendor). Refuting plaintiff's contention that the land sold to her is the very land under question, vendor Leoncia Lasangue testifies that: Q. But Victoria Lechugas declared here that, by means of this document, exhibit 'A', you sold to her this very land in litigation; while you declared here now that this land in litigation was not included in the sale you made of another parcel of land in her favor. What do you say about that? A. I only sold six (6) hectares to her. Q. And that was included in this land in litigation? A. No. xxx xxx xxx Q. Did you tell her where that land you were selling to her was situated? xxx xxx xxx A. On the South. Q. South side of what land, of the land in litigation? A. The land I sold to her is south of the land in litigation. xxx xxx xxx

Q. What portion of these thirty-six (36) hectares of land did you sell actually, according to your agreement with Victoria Lechugas, and was it inside the thirty-six (36) hectares of land or a portion on one of the sides of thirty-six (36) hectares? A. It is on the edge of the whole land. Q. Where is that edge? on the north, east, west or south? A . This edge. (witness indicating the lower edge of the piece of paper shown into her) Q. Do you know what is east, that is, the direction where the sun rises? A. I know what is east. Q. Do you know where the sun sets ? A. The sun sets on the west. Q. If you are standing in the middle of your land containing thirty-six (36) hectares and facing the east, that is, the direction where the sun rises, where is that portion of land sold to Victoria Lechugas, on your left, on your right, front of you or behind you? A. On my right side. (Witness indicating south). (Testimony of Leoncia Lasangue, pp. 209-211, rollo) (emphasis supplied). On the basis of the above findings and the testimony of vendor Leoncia Lasangue herself, who although illiterate was able to specifically point out the land which she sold to the petitioner, the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision except that the deed of sale (Exhibit A) was declared as not null and void ab initio insofar as Leoncia Lasangue was concerned because it could pass ownership of the lot in the south known as Lot No. 5522 of the Lambunao Cadastre which Leoncia Lasangue intended to sell and actually sold to her vendee, petitioner Victoria Lechugas. In her first assignment of error, the petitioner contends that the respondent Court had no legal justification when it subjected the true intent and agreement to parol evidence over the objection of petitioner and that to impugn a written agreement, the evidence must be conclusive. Petitioner maintains, moreover, that the respondent Court relied so much on the testimony of the vendor who did not even file a case for the reformation of Exhibit A. The contentions are without merit.

The appellate court acted correctly in upholding the trial court's action in admitting the testimony of Leoncia Lasangue. The petitioner claims that Leoncia Lasangue was the vendor of the disputed land. The petitioner denies that Leoncia Lasangue sold Lot No. 5522 to her. She alleges that this lot was sold to her by one Leonora Lasangue, who, however, was never presented as witness in any of the proceedings below by herein petitioner. As explained by a leading commentator on our Rules of Court, the 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 of the parties to the suit is not party or a privy of a party to the written instrument in question and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby. (Francisco on Evidence, Vol. VII, part I of the Rules of Court, p. 155 citing 32 C.J.S. 79.) In Horn v. Hansen (57 N.W. 315), the court ruled: ...and the rule therefore applies, that as between parties to a written agreement, or their privies, parol evidence cannot be received to contradict or vary its terms. Strangers to a contract are, of course, not bound by it, and the rule excluding extrinsic evidence in the construction of writings is inapplicable in such cases; and it is relaxed where either one of the parties between whom the question arises is a stranger to the written agreement, and does not claim under or through one who is party to it. In such case the rule is binding upon neither. ... In the case of Camacho v. Municipality of Baliuag, 28 Phil. 466, this Court held that parol evidence which was introduced by the municipality was competent to defeat the terms of the plaintiff's deed which the latter executed with the Insular Government. In his concurring opinion, Justice Moreland stated: It should be noted in the first place, that there is no written instrument between the plaintiff and the municipality, that is, between the parties to the action; and there is, therefore, no possibility of the question arising as to the admissibility of parol evidence to vary or contradict the terms of an instrument. The written instrument that is, the conveyance on which plaintiff bases his action was between the Insular Government and the plaintiff, and not between the municipality and the plaintiff; and therefore, there can arise, as between the plaintiff and defendant no question relative to the varying or contradicting the terms of a written instrument between them ... The petitioner's 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 Leoncia Lasangue in favor of Victoria Lechugas. The dispute over what was actually sold is between petitioner and the private respondents. In the case at bar, through the testimony of Leoncia Lasangue, it was shown that what she really intended to sell and to be the subject of Exhibit A was Lot No. 5522 but not being able to read and write and fully relying on the good faith of her first cousin, the petitioner, she just placed her thumbmark on a

piece of paper which petitioner told her was the document evidencing the sale of land. The deed of sale described the disputed lot instead. This fact was clearly shown in Lasangue's testimony: Q. And how did you know that that was the description of the land that you wanted to sell to Victoria Lechugas? R. I know that because that land came from me. S. But how were you able to read the description or do you know the description? A. Because, since I do not know how to read and write and after the document was prepared, she made me sign it. So I just signed because I do not know how to read. xxx xxx xxx Q. What explanation did she make to you? A. She said to me, 'Manang, let us have a document prepared for you to sign on the land you sold to me.' So, after the document was prepared, I signed. Q. Did you tell her where that land you were selling to her was situated? xxx xxx xxx A. On the South. Q. South side of what land, of the land in litigation? A. The land I sold to her is south of the land in litigation. Q. Did you tell her that before preparing the document you signed? A. Yes, I told her so because I had confidence in her because she is my first cousin. (pp. 198-207, rollo) From the foregoing, there can be no other conclusion but that Lasangue did not intend to sell as she could not have sold, a piece of land already sold by her father to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents.

The fact that vendor Lasangue did not bring an action for the reformation of Exhibit "A" is of no moment. The undisputed fact is that the respondents have timely questioned the validity of the instrument and have proven that, indeed Exhibit "A" does not reflect the true intention of the vendor. There is likewise no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the respondents changed their theory on appeal. Respondents, from the very start, had questioned and denied Leoncia Lasangue's capacity to sell the disputed lot to petitioner. It was their contention that the lot was sold by Leoncia's father Emeterio Lasangue to their father, Hugo Loza wayback in 1941 while the alleged sale by Leoncia to the petitioner took place only in 1950. In essence, therefore, the respondents were already attacking the validity of Exhibit "A". Moreover, although the prior sale of the lot to their father may have been emphasized in their defenses in the civil cases filed against them by the petitioner in the lower court, nevertheless in their affirmative defense, the respondents already raised doubt on the true intention of Leoncia Lasangue in signing Exhibit "A" when they alleged that..." Leoncia Lasangue, publicly, and in writing repudiated said allegation and pretension of the plaintiff, to the effect that the parcel of land now in litigation in the present case "WAS NOT INCLUDED in the sale she executed in favor of the plaintiff ... . Consequently, petitioner cannot impute grave abuse on the part of the appellate court and state that it allowed a change of theory by the respondents for the first time on appeal for in reality, there was no such change. The third issue raised by the petitioner has no merit. There is strong, clear, and convincing evidence as to which lot was actually sold to her. We see no reason to reverse the factual findings of both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals on this point. The "reformation" which the petitioner questions was, in fact, intended to favor her. Instead of declaring the deed of sale null and void for all purposes, the Court upheld its having passed ownership of Lot No. 5522 to the petitioner. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit with costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.