BALUYUT v.

POBLETE
February 6, 2007| Austria-Martinez, J. | Petition for Review on Certiorari | Parol
Evidence Rule
PETITIONER: Guillermina Baluyut
RESPONDENT: Eulogio Poblete, Salud Poblete and CA
SUMMARY: Petitioner Baluyot borrowed P850k from the spouses Poblete as
evidenced by a promissory note such that the loan shall mature in one month.
She failed to pay, foreclosing her real estate mortgage in spouses favor. She
argued that maturity of loan is one year and that absence of demand means loan
hasnt yet matured. SC ruled that it was clearly stated in the promissiory note
that loan shall mature in one month from date of PN. Testimony of Atty.
Mendoza as parol evidence that maturity would be within 1 year cannot be
incorporated as additional conditions s they are not supported by the valid
contract.
DOCTRINE: While parol evidence is admissible to explain the meaning of
writtencontracts,itcannotservethepurposeofincorporatingintothecontract
additional contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in
writing,unlesstherehasbeenfraudormistake

FACTS:
1. Petitioner Baluyut borrowed P850,000.00 from spouses Poblete. As evidence of
her indebtedness, she signed a promissory note for the amount borrowed such
that the loan shall mature in one month. She conveyed her house and lot located
in Mandaluyong, Rizal by way of a real estate mortgage contract as security of
payment.
Baluyut failed to pay her debt upon maturity of the loan. The real estate
mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed and later on sold on auction. Being the
highest bidders, certificate of sale was issued to the spouses. TCT was issued in
the names of the spouses.
However, Baluyut remained in the possession and refused to vacate the subject
property. She argues that the maturity of the loan is one year and not one
month. That the issue of real date of the maturity of the loan can be settled only

by a formal letter of demand indicating the sum due and the specific date of
payment which is the duty of the spouse. That absence of letter of demand
means the loan has not yet matured.
ISSUE:
1.WoN loan shall mature in one month - YES
2. WoN testimony of Atty. Mendoza is admissibleNO.
RULING: Petition DENIED.
RATIO:
1. The issue of date of maturity was first brought only in her Addendum to the
Motion for Reconsideration filed before the CA. It was raised at a very late stage of
the proceedings. Also, it is a factual issue and only questions of law may be raised in
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Even if it was properly raised, it is a long-held cardinal rule that when the terms of
an agreement are reduced to writing, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed
upon and no evidence of such terms can be admitted other than the contents of the
agreement itself.
In the present case, promissory note and real estate mortgage are the law
between the two parties. It is not disputed that under the promissory note, loan
shall mature in one month from date of PN.
2. PetitionermakesmuchofthetestimonyofAtty.EdwinaMendozathatthe
maturityoftheloanwhichpetitionerincurredisoneyear.However,evidenceof
apriororcontemporaneousverbalagreementisgenerallynotadmissibletovary,
contradict or defeat the operation of a valid contract. While parol evidence is
admissibletoexplainthemeaningofwrittencontracts,itcannotservethepurposeof
incorporatingintothecontractadditionalcontemporaneousconditionswhicharenot
mentionedatallinwriting,unlesstherehasbeenfraudormistake.Intheinstant
case,asidefromthetestimonyofAtty.Mendoza,nootherevidencewaspresentedto
provethattherealdateofmaturityoftheloanisoneyear.