ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136495. July 12, 1999]

BUMATAY vs. SPOUSES QUERO.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 12, 1999.

G.R. No. 136495 (Bumatay vs. Spouses Quero.)

This is a petition for review of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP No. 48054 dated December 2, 1998 sustaining the order of the regional trial court.

An action for collection of money was filed by herein private respondent respondents against herein petitioner for the sum of P235,000.00 as the latter's outstanding balance for the purchase of the respondent's lot in the amount of P2.5 million. The deed of sale executed by the parties however states that the purchase price is only P120,000.00 to reduce the capital gains tax. On the same day the deed of sale was executed private respondent's agent who negotiated the sale, Lourdes Correa, executed as affidavit wherein she stated that the real price for the lot is P2.5 million. During the pre-trial both parties admitted that the price of the lot is P2.5 million but petitioner denied that she had an outstanding balance for the sale.

The sales agent for the private respondent testified on her affidavit to establish that the actual price for the sale is P2.5 M. Counsel for the petitioner objected to the agent's testimony stating that no oral evidence may be admitted on the deed of sale when the terms of the deed is not in issue. The RTC allowed the agent's testimony on her affidavit. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which upheld the ruling of the trial court. The Court of Appeals held that the parol evidence rule is clearly inapplicable because the witness did not testify on the deed of sale, but solely on her affidavit. Rule 130 sec. 9 of the Rules of Evidence applies to the written agreement of the parties, and witness Corea cannot be prevented from testifying on her own affidavit on this ground. Notably, the parties admitted during pre-trial that the actual price of the lot is P2.5M. No reversible error was committed in allowing the agent to testify as to the actual price of the lot.

Wherefore the petition is denied for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE