ESPERANZA BORILLO VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 55691, May 21, 1992
FACTS:
Elpidio Borillo owns four parcels of unregistered land, namely, A, B, C and D. When Elpidio died, his wife, Esperanza (petitioner), continued to possess and cultivate the same. Years later, the siblings of Elpidio, namely: Catalina (private respondent) and Marcos Borillo, forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed Esperanza of the property. The latter then filed a complaint for recovery of property.
Catalina testified that parcels A, C and D were sold to her by her late brother Elpidio as evidenced by:
Exhibit “3”- an acknowledgement receipt of a loan of P40.00 dated May 12, 1946 (no mention of any property sold; not acknowledged before a notary public); and
Exhibit “4”- an undated and unsigned document (no witnesses, not acknowledged before a notary public, and has a mere cross over the written name of Elpidio)
ISSUES:
1. Whether Exhibits “3” and “4” are admissible in evidence
2. Whether the testimony of Catalina aiding in the description of Exhibit “3” violates the parole evidence rule
RULING:
1. NO. Both Exhibits "3" and "4" are private documents. Hence, before they may be received in evidence, their due execution and authenticity must first be proven either: (a) By anyone who saw the writing executed; (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker; or (c) By a subscribing witness.
Private respondent did not present anyone who actually saw the execution of Exhibits "3" and "4", witnessed Elpidio affix his signature on Exhibit "3" or make the cross over his written name in Exhibit "4". There are no subscribing witnesses. The due execution then of Exhibits "3" and "4", as the alleged deeds of sale transferring title over said parcels of land to private respondent, was not satisfactorily proven; thus, the same can not be received in evidence.
2. YES. Exhibit “3” suffers from a patent and not just an intrinsic ambiguity. There was no mention of any property sold. Hence, it hardly qualifies as a deed of sale. Before parol evidence may be admitted in order to identify, explain or define the subject matter of a writing, there must be a description that will serve as a foundation for such evidence. Parol evidence is not admissible to identify the property where the description thereof is so vague as to amount to no description at all. In other words, parol evidence is not permitted to supply a description, but only to apply it. The uncertainty cannot be explained by parol evidence.
FACTS:
Elpidio Borillo owns four parcels of unregistered land, namely, A, B, C and D. When Elpidio died, his wife, Esperanza (petitioner), continued to possess and cultivate the same. Years later, the siblings of Elpidio, namely: Catalina (private respondent) and Marcos Borillo, forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed Esperanza of the property. The latter then filed a complaint for recovery of property.
Catalina testified that parcels A, C and D were sold to her by her late brother Elpidio as evidenced by:
Exhibit “3”- an acknowledgement receipt of a loan of P40.00 dated May 12, 1946 (no mention of any property sold; not acknowledged before a notary public); and
Exhibit “4”- an undated and unsigned document (no witnesses, not acknowledged before a notary public, and has a mere cross over the written name of Elpidio)
ISSUES:
1. Whether Exhibits “3” and “4” are admissible in evidence
2. Whether the testimony of Catalina aiding in the description of Exhibit “3” violates the parole evidence rule
RULING:
1. NO. Both Exhibits "3" and "4" are private documents. Hence, before they may be received in evidence, their due execution and authenticity must first be proven either: (a) By anyone who saw the writing executed; (b) By evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker; or (c) By a subscribing witness.
Private respondent did not present anyone who actually saw the execution of Exhibits "3" and "4", witnessed Elpidio affix his signature on Exhibit "3" or make the cross over his written name in Exhibit "4". There are no subscribing witnesses. The due execution then of Exhibits "3" and "4", as the alleged deeds of sale transferring title over said parcels of land to private respondent, was not satisfactorily proven; thus, the same can not be received in evidence.
2. YES. Exhibit “3” suffers from a patent and not just an intrinsic ambiguity. There was no mention of any property sold. Hence, it hardly qualifies as a deed of sale. Before parol evidence may be admitted in order to identify, explain or define the subject matter of a writing, there must be a description that will serve as a foundation for such evidence. Parol evidence is not admissible to identify the property where the description thereof is so vague as to amount to no description at all. In other words, parol evidence is not permitted to supply a description, but only to apply it. The uncertainty cannot be explained by parol evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment