This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-02-04 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| As earlier adverted to, the trial court held that respondents deviated from the specifications and terms of the contract, particularly with regard to the open space closing and the setback reduction, without securing the approval of the Spouses Francisco. On the other hand, the appellate court held that the Spouses Francisco were the ones who initiated and requested the deviations. The conflict in these findings warrants a departure from the general rule that this Court shall not entertain petitions for review which substantially raise questions of fact.[7] The conflict accounts for the divergence of the decisions of the courts below.[8] | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Court cannot sustain petitioners' contention that their obligation to return the first payment should be deemed one with a period, and that the Court should fix the period within which they should comply with the obligation. In the first place, there is no occasion to apply the first paragraph of Article 1197[22] since there is no showing that the parties had intended such a period. This matter was not raised in the Answer, the Amended Answer or the Second Amended Answer which petitioners filed in the trial court; no evidence was likewise offered to prove such intent. Indeed, the parties to a contract are bound by their agreement,[23] considering that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.[24] | |||||