Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. JERRY V. DAVID

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 161051 2009-07-23	COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS VELASCO JR., J.
While in Republic v. David,[32] we applied the above definition with regard an enumeration of conditions or requisites in this wise: The conditions that were allegedly violated by respondent are contained in paragraph 10 of the Deed of Conditional Sale, as follows:
	GR NO. 171858 2007-01-22	REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION v. CHINESE YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHIL. ISLANDS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Under the law, possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right.[26] In short, possession can be either actual or merely constructive.[27]
	GR NO. 169578 2006-11-30	TERESITA DIO v. ST. FERDINAND MEMORIAL PARK CALLEJO, SR., J.
A contract of adhesion, wherein one party imposes a readymade form of contract on the other, is not strictly against the law.[29] A contract of adhesion is as binding as ordinary contracts, the reason being that the party who adheres to the contract is free to reject it entirely.[30] Contrary to petitioner's contention, not every contract of adhesion is an invalid agreement. As we had the occasion to state in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Perez:[31]
	GR NO. 154156 2006-08-31	JMA HOUSE INCORPORATED v. STA. MONICA INDUSTRIAL CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the second issue, the law is that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.[59] When the language of the contract is explicit, leaving no doubt as to the intention of the drafters, the courts may not read into it any other intention that would contradict its plain import.[60] The clear terms of the contract should never be the subject matter of interpretation. Neither abstract justice nor the rule of liberal interpretation justifies the creation of a contract for the parties which they did not make themselves or the imposition upon one party to a contract or obligation not assumed simply or merely to avoid seeming hardships.[61] Their true meaning must be enforced, as it is to be presumed that the contracting parties know their scope and effects.[62] If the parties execute two or more separate writings covering a common transaction and subject matter, the writings should be read and interpreted together to render the parties' intention effective.[63] On the other hand, if the contract is ambiguous or the contracting parties offer conflicting claims on their intent, the trial court, at the first instance, has to ascertain the true intent of the parties, taking into account the contemporaneous and subsequent conduct, actions and words of the parties material to the case,[64] and pertinent facts having a tendency to fix and determine the real intent of the parties and undertaking shall be considered. It is the parties' intention which shall be accorded primordial consideration. The reasonableness of the result obtained, after analysis and construction of the contract/contracts, must also be carefully considered.[65] The ascertained intention of the parties is deemed an integral part of the contract, as though it had been originally expressed in unequivocal terms. The Court will enforce the true agreement of the parties even if the property in question has already been registered and a new transfer certificate of title is issued in the name of the transferee.[66]
	GR NO. 165881 2006-04-19	OSCAR VILLAMARIA v. VS.CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Ang mga nasasaad sa KASUNDUAN ito ay buong galang at puso kong sinasang-ayunan at buong sikap na pangangalagaan ng TAUHAN NG IKALAWANG PANIG ang nasabing sasakyan at gagamitin lamang ito sa paghahanapbuhay at wala nang iba pa.[51] The parties expressly agreed that petitioner, as vendor, and respondent, as vendee, entered into a contract to sell the jeepney on a daily installment basis of P550.00 payable in four years and that petitioner would thereafter become its owner. A contract is one of conditional sale, oftentimes referred to as contract to sell, if the ownership or title over the property sold is retained by the vendor, and is not passed to the vendee unless and until there is full payment of the purchase price and/or upon faithful compliance with the other terms and conditions that may lawfully be stipulated.[52] Such payment or satisfaction of other preconditions, as the case may be, is a positive suspensive condition, the failure of which is not a breach of contract, casual or serious, but simply an event that would prevent the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring binding force.[53] Stated differently, the efficacy or obligatory force of the vendor's obligation to transfer title is subordinated to the happening of a future and uncertain event so that if the suspensive condition does not take place, the parties would stand as if the conditional obligation had never existed.[54] The vendor may extrajudicially terminate the operation of the contract, refuse conveyance, and retain the sums or installments already received, where such rights are expressly provided for.[55]