WHATEVER IS NOT FOUND IN THE WRITING IS UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE BEEN WAIVED AND ABANDONED.

     The petitioner does not dispute the due execution and the authenticity of these documents, (Permanent Savings and Loan Bank vs. Velarde (G.R. No. 140608, September 23, 2004) particularly the Agreement. However, he claims that since the Agreement does not reflect the true intention of the parties, the Affidavit was subsequently executed in order to reflect the parties’ true intention. The petitioner’s argument calls to for the application of the parol evidence rule, i.e., when the terms of an agreement are reduced to writing, the written agreement is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of these terms can be admitted other than what is contained in the written agreement.  Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived and abandoned.  To avoid the operation of the parol evidence rule, the Rules of Court allows a party to present evidence modifying, explaining or adding to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading, as in this case, the failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties. The failure of the written agreement to express the true intention of the parties is either by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident, which nevertheless did not prevent a meeting of the minds of the parties. (Leoveras vs. Valdez, G.R. No. 169985, June 15, 2011, Brion, J.).