Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GARCIA
PLANTATION CO., INC
G.R. No. L-17820 || April 24, 1963 || Paredes J.
Petitioner: LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(LSDC hereinafter), plaintiff-appellant
Respondent: GARCIA PLANTATION CO., INC., and/or SALUD GARCIA
and VICENTE B. GARCIA, defendant-appelle
SUMMARY:
LSDC filed a specific action case against Garcia plantation and/or Salud and
Vicente Garcia for the payment of P5,995.30 as unpaid balance of 2 tractors
they bought from plaintiff. Salud was made a party because of 2 promissory
notes she issued. Defendants assert that the PN was actually novated by a
letter (Exhibit L) sent by Atty. Kintanar, the LSDC Board of Liquidators,
extending their deadline to pay until May 31, 1957. When LSDC presented
its witness Atty. Lucido Guinto, the writer of the said letter, to disclose the
intention of the said agreement, defendant objected to it. The Lower Court
ruled it out and said that it was parole evidence. CA certified the case to SC.
Issue: W/N the lower court erred in denying the presentation of Atty.
Guintos testimony, and considering it as parole evidence.
The 2nd paragraph contained a condition precedent, which states: This
matter has been the subject of agreement between your husband and this
office. When the operation of the contract is made to depend upon the
occurrence of an event, which, for that reason is a condition precedent, such
may be established by parol evidence. This is an exception to parol evidence
rule. This rule does not prevent the introduction of extrinsic evidence to
show that a supposed contract never became effective by reason of the failure
of some collateral condition or stipulation, pre-requisite to liability. In the
case at bar, reference is made of a previous agreement, in the second
paragraph of letter Exhibit L, and although a document is usually to be
interpreted in the precise terms in which it is couched, Courts, in the exercise
of sound discretion, may admit evidence of surrounding circumstances, in
order to arrive at the true intention of the parties.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court erred in excluding parol evidence. Yes.
HELD:
The decision appealed from is reversed, and the case remanded to the lower
court for further proceedings. Costs against the appellees.
RATIO: