Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICTORIA LECHUGAS v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 165748 2011-09-14	HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA v. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA MENDOZA, J.
Stemming from the presumption that the Heirs of Alfonso were not parties to the contract, it is also argued that the parol evidence rule may not be properly invoked by either party in the litigation against the other, where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a 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.[29]
	GR No. 165748 2011-09-14	HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA v. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA MENDOZA, J.
Indeed, the applicability of the parol evidence rule requires that the case be between parties and their successors-in-interest.[35] In this case, both the Heirs of Alfonso and the Heirs of Policronio are successors-in-interest of the parties to the Deed of Sale as they claim rights under Alfonso and Policronio, respectively. The parol evidence rule excluding evidence aliunde, however, still cannot apply because the present case falls under two exceptions to the rule, as discussed above.
	GR No. 168387 2010-08-25	SALUN-AT MARQUEZ v. ELOISA ESPEJO DEL CASTILLO, J.
However, even the application of the Parol Evidence Rule is improper in the case at bar. In the first place, respondents are not parties to the VLTs executed between RBBI and petitioners; they are strangers to the written contracts. Rule 130, Section 9 specifically provides that parol evidence rule is exclusive only as "between the parties and their successors-in-interest." The parol evidence rule may not be invoked where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or a privy of a party to the written document in question, and does not base his claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument.[44]
	GR NO. 158762 2007-04-03	SILVANO B. GAJE v. PATRICIA S. VDA. DE DALISAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Second, petitioners' contention that the Deeds of Sale indicating the name of Dalisay, Jr. as vendee is the best evidence to prove his ownership of the parcels of land does not hold water. In the case at bar, Patricia, is not party to the Deeds of Sale. The rule excluding extrinsic evidence in the construction of writings is inapplicable in a case where one of the parties to the case is a stranger to the contract.[34] Patricia, the widow of Dalisay, Sr., is a stranger to the said Deeds of Sale; thus, the trial court properly admitted extrinsic evidence adduced by respondent against its efficacy, and can be deemed competent to defeat the deed.[35]