This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2008-07-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| It is established that respondent signed the deed only because of the urgent necessity of obtaining funds. When the vendor is in urgent need of money when he executes the sale, the alleged sale with pacto de retro will be construed as an equitable mortgage.[54] "Necessitous men are not, truly speaking, free men; but to answer a present emergency will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose upon them."[55] | |||||
|
2007-12-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| First of all, the statements of accounts and the delivery receipts do not indicate that the construction materials or the cash advances were made in connection with the sale of the subject property. Any doubt as to the real meaning of the contract must be resolved against the person who drafted the instrument and is responsible for the ambiguity thereof.[34] Since Salvador prepared these statements of accounts and therefore caused the ambiguity, he cannot benefit from the resulting ambiguity. Salvador is hardly an ignorant and illiterate person; rather, he is a businessman engaged in manufacturing and distributing construction materials and operates no less than two branches. It should have been noted in the statement of accounts, or even in another document, that the cash advances and deliveries of construction materials were made in connection with a transaction as important as a sale of land. As they are, the statements of accounts and especially the straightforward delivery receipts are insufficient proof that Judge Amado sold his property to Salvador. | |||||
|
2007-09-13 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The elementary principle is that it is perfectly legitimate for a bilateral contract to be embodied in two or more separate writings, and that in such an event the writings should be read and interpreted together in such a way as to eliminate seeming inconsistencies and render the intention of the parties effectual.[51] In construing a written contract, the reason behind and the circumstances surrounding its execution are of paramount importance to place the interpreter in the situation occupied by the parties concerned at the time the writing was executed.[52] Construction of the terms of a contract, which would amount to impairment or loss of right, is not favored. Conservation and preservation, not waiver, abandonment or forfeiture of a right, is the rule.[53] In case of doubts in contracts, the same should be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests.[54] | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is that the decisive factor in evaluating an agreement is the intention of the parties, as shown not necessarily by the terminology used in the contract but by their conduct, words, actions and deeds prior to, during and immediately after executing the agreement. As such, therefore, documentary and parol evidence may be submitted and admitted to prove such intention.[10] | |||||
|
2006-01-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, when supported by substantial evidence, findings of fact of the trial court as affirmed by the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties,[11] which this Court will not review unless there are exceptional circumstances. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case that would have impelled the Court to depart from the factual findings of both the trial court and the CA. | |||||
|
2005-10-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As a rule, the Court cannot review the factual findings of the trial court and the CA in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[11] It should be stressed that a review by certiorari under Rule 45 is a matter of discretion. Under this mode of review, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact. When supported by substantial evidence, findings of fact of the trial court as affirmed by the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties.[12] This Court will not review unless there are exceptional circumstances, viz.: (a) where the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; (b) where the information made is manifestly mistaken; (c) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) where the judgment is based on a misapplication of facts, and the findings of facts of the trial court and the appellate court are contradicted by the evidence on record; and (e) when certain material facts and circumstances had been overlooked by the trial court which, if taken into account, would alter the result of the case.[13] There exists no exceptional circumstance in this case that would warrant a departure from the factual findings of both the trial court and the CA. | |||||