GR 75290; (November, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 75290 November 4, 1992
AMADO T. GURANGO and ESTER GURANGO, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and EDWARD L. FERREIRA, respondents.
FACTS
On January 26, 1977, private respondent Edward Ferreira sold petitioner Amado Gurango a booklet of 100 raffle tickets worth P500.00 for a Makati Jaycees fundraiser. On April 14, 1977, ticket number 162574, in the name of petitioner’s minor son but in the possession of Ferreira, won a Toyota Corolla. Petitioner claimed that on April 15, 1977, he and Ferreira executed a written agreement stating that any prize won would belong solely to the holder of the corresponding claim stub, and that he mistakenly dated it April 14, 1977. He alleged Ferreira had misled him about the win. Ferreira claimed the agreement was executed on April 14, 1977, before the raffle, after petitioner decided to buy only 60 tickets and return 40, which Ferreira agreed to appropriate for himself. The trial court dismissed Ferreira’s complaint for damages and awarded moral damages and attorney’s fees to petitioners. The Intermediate Appellate Court reversed, ordering petitioners to pay Ferreira P36,000.00 for the car’s price and P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
The principal issue is the validity of the written agreement executed between petitioner Amado Gurango and private respondent Edward Ferreira, specifically whether it was executed on April 14, 1977 (before the raffle, as claimed by Ferreira) or on April 15, 1977 (after the raffle, as claimed by Gurango).
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court. The Court ruled the agreement was valid and binding. Applying the parol evidence rule (Section 9, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court), the contents of the written agreement are conclusive. The Court found Ferreira’s version more credible, noting the terms of the agreement were clear and required no interpretation. It emphasized that petitioner himself prepared and wrote the agreement, including the date “14 April 1977,” which indicated it was entered into freely and voluntarily. The Court found it highly improbable that petitioner’s consent was vitiated by fraud since he was the author of the document, and it was unlikely he would mistakenly write the wrong date for an agreement he claimed had special significance. The agreement was therefore upheld as a valid expression of the parties’ intent.