29. LECHUGAS V.

CA
PRINCIPLE: As explained by a leading commentator on our Rules of Court, the parol evidence rule does
not apply, and may not properly be invoked by either party to the litigation against the other, where at
least one of the parties to the suit is not 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. (Francisco on Evidence, Vol. VII, part I of the Rules of Court, p. 155 citing
32 C.J.S. 79.).
FACTS:
Victoria Lechugas (petitioner) bought a land from a certain Leoncia Lasangue. After the purchase of the
land, the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Leoncia Lasangue in her favor specified a certain land Lot
No. 5456 stated in the contract. When the defendants (respondents) occupied Lot No. 5456, petitioner
filed a complaint for forcible entry with damages (ejectment case) against the defendants but it
was dismissed. Petitioner appealed the case to the CFI (now RTC) of Iloilo.
While the appeal for the ejectment case was pending, petitioner filed another case in the RTC for the
recovery of possession against the same defendants involving the same Lot No. 5456. During the
trial, the defendants presented their star witness in the person of Leoncia Lasangue herself.
Leoncia Lasangue testified during the trial. That according to her, the lot that she sold to the petitioner
was not Lot No. 5456 but another lot, Lot 5522. Lasangue did not know how to read and write, so the
document of sale was prepared by the petitioner, thereafter, the former was made to sign it. Based on
her testimony, the lot indicated in the Deed of Sale which she sold to petitioner was erroneous. It was
clear that she did not intend to sell a piece of land already sold by her father to the predecessor-ininterest of the defendants (respondents). This was objected by the petitioner under the Parole Evidence
Rule.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Parole Evidence Rule apply in this case
HELD:
No. The Parole Evidence Rule will not apply in this case because it is Leoncia Lasangue who is one of the
parties to the subject Deed of Sale not the defendants. The defendants in the case were not parties to
the Deed of Sale executed between Leoncia Lasange and petitioner Lechugas.
The petitioner's reliance on the parol evidence rule is misplaced. The rule is not applicable where the
controversy is between one of the parties to the document and third persons. The deed of sale was
executed by Leoncia Lasangue in favor of Victoria Lechugas. The dispute over what was actually sold is
between petitioner and the private respondents. In the case at bar, through the testimony of Leoncia
Lasangue, it was shown that what she really intended to sell and to be the subject of Exhibit A was Lot
No. 5522 but not being able to read and write and fully relying on the good faith of her first cousin, the
petitioner, she just placed her thumbmark on a piece of paper which petitioner told her was the
document evidencing the sale of land. The deed of sale described the disputed lot instead.
Bar Q: X bought a land from Y. After the purchase of the land, a Deed of Sale was executed. The Deed
of Sale specified Lot No. 5456 as the subject of the contract. When Z occupied Lot No. 5456, X filed an
ejectment suit against Z, thereafter filed a petition for the recovery of possession against the same
defendants and the same disputed lot. Defendants Z took Y to testify before the trial court. Based on Ys

testimony, the lot indicated in the Deed of Sale which she sold to X was erroneous and not the lot she
intended to sell. X objected on the ground of the Parole Evidence Rule. Rule on the objection.
(1000points)