80. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. GONZALO ROQUE JR, respondent. [G.R. No.

203610, October 10, 2016]

FACTS:

1. Gonzalo Roque et, al are the owners of a parcel of land located in Quezon City.
2. The Republic through the order of President Marcos, wanted to expropriate the
respondent’s land for the National Government Center Projects.
3. The Respondents were reluctant at first, however due to Martial Law, they did now want
to disobey Marcos.
4. The parties had meetings and the Republic made the following representations:
a. That the respondents will be receiving lower than the market value but will
benefit from the NGC as the adjacent lands the respondents also own will
increase in value
b. That the respondents will have a right to buy-back the property in case it
abandons the project
5. After several years, informal settlers began to occupy the land, the respondents thought
that the republic abandoned its plan and converted the land for socialized housing.
6. They were right. RA 9207 was passed and it stated that the 444 hectare NGC reservation
will be part of government’s socialized housing

PROCEDURE:
7. Respondent’s filed a complaint for the annulment of sale on the ground of force, fraud,
intimidation, or undue influence. They also asserted the buyback of the properties at the
same price they sold them since the Republic failed to develop the land for which it was
expropriated
8. Republic and HUDCC argued that they are immune from suit as government
instrumentalities and the respondent’s freely entered the contract of sale absent any
vitiation of consent.
9. Viloria (Q.C Assessor testified that in any event that the Government did not follow what
was talked about, the respondents would be able to reacquire their property.
10. RTC: Respondent’s favor
11. CA: Affirmed
12. Republic filed a petition for review on certiorari

ISSUE/S: WON an exception to parol evidence applies particularly Viloria and Gonzalo’s
statements

RULING: NO

Section 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that a written contract is deemed to contain
all the terms agreed upon by the parties and no evidence of these terms is admissible other than
the contents of the contract. The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to the terms of a
written agreement by testimony showing that the parties orally agreed on other terms before
the signing of the document.

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain, or add to the terms of a written
agreement if he puts in issue in his pleadings either:
(a) an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake, or imperfection in the written agreement;
(b) the failure of the written agreement to express the parties' true intent and agreement;
(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 Court held that the parol evidence was inadmissible because, among others, the
respondents failed to expressly plead that the deeds of sale did not reflect the parties' intentions.
Instead, they merely alleged that the sale was subject to four conditions which they tried to
prove during trial.

The Court emphasized that this cannot be done because they failed to put in issue in their
pleadings any exception to the parol evidence rule.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, we grant the Republic's petition and accordingly REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Court
of Appeal's July 4, 2012 decision and September 26, 2012 resolution in CA G.R. CV No. 93018.
SO ORDERED.