This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
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] | |||||
|
2006-08-31 |
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] | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| A contract may be embodied in two or more separate writings, in which event the writings should be read and interpreted together in such a way as to eliminate seeming inconsistencies and render the parties' intention effectual.[34] 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.[35] 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.[36] In case of doubts in contracts, the same should be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests.[37] Moreover, such doubts must be resolved against the person who drafted the deed and who is responsible for the ambiguities in the deed.[38] | |||||
|
2004-11-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is a cardinal rule in interpretation of contracts that if the terms thereof are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning shall control.[33] However, in order to ascertain the intention of the parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts should be considered.[34] While this Court recognizes the principle that contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties, this principle is tempered by the rule that the intention of the parties is primordial[35] and "once the intention of the parties has been ascertained, that element is deemed as an integral part of the contract as though it has been originally expressed in unequivocal terms."[36] | |||||