G.R. No. 139523 - SPS. FELIPE AND LETICIA CANNU, VS. SPS. GIL AND FERNANDINA GALANG AND NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with modification. Defendants-appellees spouses Galang are hereby ordered to return the partial payments made by plaintiff-appellants in the amount of P135,000.00. No pronouncement as to cost. [26] The motion for reconsideration [27] filed by petitioners was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution [28] dated 22 July 1999. Hence, this Petition for Certiorari. Petitioners raise the following assignment of errors: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT PETITIONERS BREACH OF THE OBLIGATION WAS SUBSTANTIAL. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IN EFFECT IT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE OBLIGATION TO PAY THE MONTHLY AMORTIZATION WITH NHMFC. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE OTHER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MILITATE AGAINST RESCISSION. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE ACTION FOR RESCISSION IS SUBSIDIARY. [29] Before discussing the errors allegedly committed by the Court of Appeals, it must be stated a priori that the latter made a misappreciation of evidence regarding the consideration of the property in litigation when it relied solely on the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage executed by the respondents-spouses Galang and petitioners-spouses Cannu. As above-quoted, the consideration for the house and lot stated in the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage is P250,000.00, plus the assumption of the balance of the mortgage loan with NHMFC. However, after going over the record of the case, more particularly the Answer of respondents-spouses, the evidence shows the consideration therefor is P120,000.00, plus the payment of the outstanding loan mortgage with NHMFC, and of the equity or second mortgage with CERF Realty (Developer of the property). [30] Nowhere in the complaint and answer of the petitioners-spouses Cannu and respondents-spouses Galang shows that the consideration is P250,000.00. In fact, what is clear is that of the P120,000.00 to be paid to the latter, only P75,000.00 was paid to Adelina Timbang, the spouses Galangs attorney-in-fact. This debunks the provision in the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage that the amount of P250,000.00 has been received by petitioners. Inasmuch as the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage failed to express the true intent and agreement of the parties regarding its consideration, the same should not be fully relied upon. The foregoing facts lead us to hold that the case on hand falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the parole evidence rule. Under the Rules of Court, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading, among others, its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto. [31] In the case at bar, when respondents-spouses enumerated in their Answer the terms and condit