RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS

PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE (Sec. 10, Rule 130)

While it is subsumed under the rules of admissibility of documents, we’re not really talking about the
admissibility of documents, but talking about the prohibition on testimony or other evidence that tends
to modify or add to the terms of a written agreement.

Sec. 10. 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, as 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 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.

General Rule:

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, as between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. xxx

Imagine an ordinary contractual situation: there’s the creditor, the debtor, or contracting party A, B. If
you recall the case of San Miguel Properties vs. Wang, the SC laid down the stages in the life of a
contract: Preparation; Perfection; Execution or the Death of the contract. I want to take particular
attention to the 1st phase in the life of the contract: Preparation Stage. It is the period of haggling or
soliciting conditions, where the 1st party will say, “I want to buy your property for this amount xxx” and
the other party would make a counter-offer that he will buy the property for a lower amount, and then
the other party would then again haggle. So, there’s a series of offers and counter-offers. When the
parties’ minds have already met with respect to the terms and conditions that are to govern their
contractual relationship, it is now of accepted practice that contracts will be reduce into writing.
Everything that they have discussed, everything that they have met their minds on will be reduced into
writing.

What happens to everything else that took place prior to the drafting of the contract, or prior to
reducing the contract into writing? Everything is already deemed integrated into the written agreement
and that written agreement is the one given primacy by the PER.

Kung sa ato pa, kung ang mga Partido gisulat na ang ilahang contrata, dili na pwede pagabaguhon pa.
Dili na pwede by means of testimony or other evidence utruhon ang contracta because that would be
violative of the PER.
Other Names for PER:

 EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE-evidence that can be seen outside of the contact of the parties.
 EVIDENCE ALIUNDE (Latin term)
 ORAL EVIDENCE (Layman’s term; or testimonial evidence that tends to vary or modify the terms
and conditions of a written agreement)

IT IS A RULE OF EXCLUSION

When parties have already reduced their agreement into writing, the written agreement becomes
supreme. It supersedes everything they have discussed prior to the perfection of the contract.

A party therefore cannot say something different from what the contract says. He cannot modify or add
to its terms.

Because mawala ang importance sa written agreement kung i-allow lang nimo ang isa ka party to add to
its terms, to change its interpretation to suit its condition better simply by introducing evidence to the
contrary.

EFFECT OF PER AS A RULE OF EXCLUSION

If not in the contract (as to terms and conditions), it is INADMISSIBLE.

The stipulations may be valid but you cannot prove it in court.

RATIONALE

1. Hierarchy of Evidence

Recall that there are hierarchy of evidence; that documentary evidence prevails over testimonial
evidence (GSIS vs. CA)

2. Principle of Waiver After Integration

When the parties have already integrated into a written agreement, the terms and conditions that
are to govern their contractual relationship, tanan nga wala nasulat, deemed waived. Because if it is
important to the parties, they should have included that into their contract. The fact that they did
not include that into the contract, the law presumes that it is already waived.

3. Comparative Accuracy of Written Evidence Over Everything Else that Rest Merely on the Fleeting
Memory of Man

Ginatagaan ug primacy ang written evidence over everything na pwede bitaw ma-mali or ma-
misinterpret based on the memory of man. Malay nimo mali ang pagkahinumdom, so we better
rely on the written evidence.
 The most simplistic example when it comes to PER: Moses coming down from Mt. Sainai, and he’s
bringing down supposedly the 10 commandments as written by the fingers of God himself in those
tablets of stones. (talks about different commands) So, for example, diba 10 commandments, naay
proof si Moses na 10 commandments lang jud sya. Can Moses say later, “By the way, naa diay
nakalimtan gibutang si God sa Commandments”? So nag dungag-dungag si Moses, dili na sya pwede.
Whatever is written, mao lang na ang mag govern sa relationship sa parties.

4. The Belief That Parol Evidence is Prone to Fabrication (HERBON vs. PALAD, GR NO 149542, July
20, 2006)
Thus, the purpose of the parol evidence rule is to give stability to written agreements, and to
remove the temptation and possibility of perjury, which would be afforded if parol evidence were
admissible (CONDE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 119 SCRA 245)

Take Note That:

Art. 1356. Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all
the essential requisites for their validity are present. However, when the law requires that a contract be
in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that a contract be proved in a certain way,
that requirement is absolute and indispensable. In such cases, the right of the parties stated in the
following article cannot be exercised. (1278a)

Again, it could be valid between the contracting parties because a contract is not usually formal.
Contracts are ordinarily consensual—perfected by consent, manifested by the meeting of the offer and
the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. Enough na nay
consent. But we’re talking about the provability of certain terms and conditions that are not included in
the contract.

While PER does not proclaim itself to be limitation on the validity of a contract, it is a requirement that
must be taken into consideration as a condition precedent to a party's ability to prove the same. (So,
kung wala sa kontrata, you cannot prove it.)

Even if the contract is valid in its oral form, contracts being in generally and essentially consensual, it is
virtually futile if you cannot therefore sue upon it or you are barred by conclusive presence of the
written document relative the same agreement.

REQUISITES

1. There must be an agreement;

2. The terms of the agreement must be reduced to writing;
3. The dispute is between the parties or their successors-in-interest; and
4. There is dispute as to the terms of the agreement.

Requisite 1: Agreement

In order for the rule to apply, there must be an agreement. As understood, an agreement is a contract.
Thus, where there is meeting of the minds between the parties and the same is reduced into writing
(regardless whether notarized or not), the resulting physical contract is therefore already covered by the
Rule.

This general understanding is not applicable to the last part of the Rule which provides that "(t)he term
'agreement' includes wills."

Verily, a will is not an agreement. It is strictly personal and unilateral act. However, by force of the Rules
and in an apparent legal fiction, a will is an agreement as well although there is clearly no meeting of the
minds.

If you recall in your succession, you cannot subject the making of a will to a contract. For example, ako
(Sir) ang testator, I will intstitute B as my heir provided that B also institutes me as his heir. Dili na sya
pwede, this is what we call disposition captatoria.

Why is the Rule Applied to Wills?

The dangers (perjury) sought to be avoided by the requirement of the Rule is present in the making of
the wills and are deemed to be more prevalent inasmuch as the maker of a will, the decendent, can no
longer objects to attempts to vary his testamentary intent as his voice is already silenced by death.

Requisite 2: Reduced to Writing

Is it required that the agreement should be in a public instrument for the applicability of the PER? NO.

INCIONG vs. CA | GR NO 96405 | June 26, 1996

Clearly, the rule does not specify that the written agreement be a public document. xxx. Thus, for the
parol evidence rule to apply, a written contract need not be in any particular form, or be signed by both
parties.