Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 466 views

    Canuto v. Mariano G.R. No. L-11346 March 21, 1918

    Uploaded by

    happypammyness
    This case involved a dispute over an oral agreement to extend the redemption period for the repurchase of land. The plaintiff had sold land to the defendant through a written contract that gave the plaintiff one year to repurchase the land. Two days before the redemption period ended, the plaintiff orally agreed with the defendant to extend the redemption period to the end of December 1914. A witness corroborated the plaintiff's testimony about the oral agreement. The court held that the oral agreement was valid and binding, as evidence of an oral agreement made after a written contract is admissible to vary the terms of the original written contract. The oral agreement did not deny the original written terms, but showed the parties exercised their right to change the original agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Canuto v. Mariano G.R. No. L-11346 March 21, 1918

    Uploaded by

    happypammyness
    466 views1 page
    This case involved a dispute over an oral agreement to extend the redemption period for the repurchase of land. The plaintiff had sold land to the defendant through a written contract that gave the plaintiff one year to repurchase the land. Two days before the redemption period ended, the plaintiff orally agreed with the defendant to extend the redemption period to the end of December 1914. A witness corroborated the plaintiff's testimony about the oral agreement. The court held that the oral agreement was valid and binding, as evidence of an oral agreement made after a written contract is admissible to vary the terms of the original written contract. The oral agreement did not deny the original written terms, but showed the parties exercised their right to change the original agreement.

    Original Description:

    Evidence Existence of other Subsequent Terms

    Original Title

    Canuto v. Mariano G.R. No. L-11346 March 21, 1918

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over an oral agreement to extend the redemption period for the repurchase of land. The plaintiff had sold land to the defendant through a written contract that gave the plaintiff one year to repurchase the land. Two days before the redemption period ended, the plaintiff orally agreed with the defendant to extend the redemption period to the end of December 1914. A witness corroborated the plaintiff's testimony about the oral agreement. The court held that the oral agreement was valid and binding, as evidence of an oral agreement made after a written contract is admissible to vary the terms of the original written contract. The oral agreement did not deny the original written terms, but showed the parties exercised their right to change the original agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    466 views1 page

    Canuto v. Mariano G.R. No. L-11346 March 21, 1918

    Uploaded by

    happypammyness
    This case involved a dispute over an oral agreement to extend the redemption period for the repurchase of land. The plaintiff had sold land to the defendant through a written contract that gave the plaintiff one year to repurchase the land. Two days before the redemption period ended, the plaintiff orally agreed with the defendant to extend the redemption period to the end of December 1914. A witness corroborated the plaintiff's testimony about the oral agreement. The court held that the oral agreement was valid and binding, as evidence of an oral agreement made after a written contract is admissible to vary the terms of the original written contract. The oral agreement did not deny the original written terms, but showed the parties exercised their right to change the original agreement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Canuto v.

    Mariano
    G.R. No. L-11346

    March 21, 1918

    Existence of other Subsequent Terms


    Facts: On December 4, 1913, the plaintiff, Espiridiona executed a deed of sale with a right to
    repurchase (within 1 yr from date of deed of the same amount) of a parcel of land to defendant Juan,
    for the sum of P360. After the redemption period elapsed and plaintiff, having failed to exercise her
    right to repurchase, defendant set up a claim of absolute ownership over the land notwithstanding the
    insistent demands of plaintiff that she be permitted to exercise her right to repurchase pursuant to an
    alleged oral agreement for the extension of the r redemption period down to the end of the month of
    December, 1914.
    Plaintiff claims that two days before the expiration of the original redemption period, she asked the
    defendant for an extension of time for the repurchase of the land and that upon her promise to make
    the repurchase during the month of December, 1914, the defendant agreed to extend the redemption
    set out in the written contract, to the end of that month.
    Said oral agreement was witnessed by a certain Mr. Pascual and the latter corroborated plaintiffs
    testimony
    Issue: Whether the oral agreement for the extension of time for payment is binding upon the parties.
    Held: Yes
    The contention that the plaintiff should not be permitted to alter, vary, or contradict the terms of the
    written instrument by the introduction of oral evidence is manifestly untenable under the
    circumstances of the case, as will readily appear from the following citation from 17 Cyc., p. 734, and
    numerous cases cited in support of the doctrine:
    The rule forbidding the admission of parol or extrinsic evidence to alter, vary, or contradict a written
    instrument does not apply so as to prohibit the establishment by parol of an agreement between the
    parties to a writing, entered into subsequent to the time when the written instrument was executed,
    notwithstanding such agreement may have the effect of adding to, changing, modifying, or even
    altogether abrogating the contract of the parties as evidenced by the writing; for the parol evidence
    does not in any way deny that the original agreement of the parties was that which the writing
    purports to express, but merely goes to show that the parties have exercised their right to change or
    abrogate the same, or to make a new and independent contract.
    It makes no difference how soon after the execution of the written contract the parol one was made. If
    it was in fact subsequent and is otherwise unobjectionable it may be proved and enforced.

    You might also like