Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAPULAPU FOUNDATION v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 164186 2010-10-04	FINANCIAL BUILDING CORPORATION v. RUDLIN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid contract. [42] Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court 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.
	GR No. 164326 2008-10-17	SEAOIL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. AUTOCORP GROUP NACHURA, J.
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]
	GR No. 144435 2007-02-06	GUILLERMINA BALUYUT v. EULOGIO POBLETE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner makes much of the testimony of Atty. Edwina Mendoza that the maturity of the loan which petitioner incurred is one year. However, evidence of a prior or contemporaneous verbal agreement is generally not admissible to vary, contradict or defeat the operation of a valid contract.[19] While parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in writing, unless there has been fraud or mistake.[20] In the instant case, aside from the testimony of Atty. Mendoza, no other evidence was presented to prove that the real date of maturity of the loan is one year. In fact there was not even any allegation in the Complaint and in the Memorandum filed by petitioner with the trial court to the effect that there has been fraud or mistake as to the date of the loan's maturity as contained in the Promissory Note of July 20, 1981.