This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-07-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Compromise agreements are contracts, whereby the parties undertake reciprocal obligations to resolve their differences, thus, avoiding litigation, or put an end to one already commenced.[18] As a contract, when the terms of the agreement are clear and explicit that they do not justify an attempt to read into it any alleged intention of the parties; the terms are to be understood literally, just as they appear on the face of the contract.[19] Considering that Caruff never intended to transfer the subject property to PMO, burdened by the generating set and sump pumps, respondent should remove them from the subject property. | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| When the terms of the agreement are clear and explicit, such that they do not justify an attempt to read into them any alleged intention of the parties, the terms are to be understood literally just as they appear on the face of the contract. It is only in instances when the language of a contract is ambiguous or obscure that courts ought to apply certain established rules of construction in order to ascertain the supposed intent of the parties. However, these rules will not be used to make a new contract for the parties or to rewrite the old one, even if the contract is inequitable or harsh. They are applied by the court merely to resolve doubts and ambiguities within the framework of the agreement.[10] | |||||