This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-08-07 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Corollarily, as decreed in Valdez v. CA,[41] the presumption under Article 160 cannot be made to apply where there is no showing as to when the property alleged to be conjugal was acquired:x x x The issuance of the title in the name solely of one spouse is not determinative of the conjugal nature of the property, since there is no showing that it was acquired during the marriage of the Spouses Carlos Valdez, Sr. and Josefina L. Valdez. The presumption under Article 160 of the New Civil Code, that property acquired during marriage is conjugal, does not apply where there is no showing as to when the property alleged to be conjugal was acquired. The presumption cannot prevail when the title is in the name of only one spouse and the rights of innocent third parties are involved. Moreover, when the property is registered in the name of only one spouse and there is no showing as to when the property was acquired by same spouse, this is an indication that the property belongs exclusively to the said spouse. | |||||
|
2010-12-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| An extrajudicial settlement is a contract and it is a well-entrenched doctrine that the law does not relieve a party from the effects of a contract, entered into with all the required formalities and with full awareness of what he was doing, simply because the contract turned out to be a foolish or unwise investment.[19] However, in the construction or interpretation of an instrument, the intention of the parties is primordial and is to be pursued.[20] 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.[21] If the contract appears to be contrary to the evident intentions of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former.[22] The denomination given by the parties in their contract is not conclusive of the nature of the contents.[23] In this particular case, the trial court, based on its appreciation of the pieces of evidence presented, rightfully concluded that the intent of the signatories was contrary to the questioned document's content and denomination. | |||||
|
2007-08-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The following are the differences between a Contract OF Sale and a Contract TO Sell: (a) In a Contract OF Sale, the non-payment of the price is a resolutory condition which extinguishes the transaction that, for a time, existed and discharges the obligations created thereunder;[25] in a Contract TO Sell, full payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive condition, failure of which is not a breach but an event that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from becoming effective;[26] (b) In the first, title over the property generally passes to the buyer upon delivery; in the second, ownership is retained by the seller, regardless of delivery and is not to pass until full payment of the price; [27] and (c) In the first, after delivery has been made, the seller has lost ownership and cannot recover it unless the contract is resolved or rescinded; in the second, since the seller retains ownership, despite delivery, he is enforcing and not rescinding the contract if he seeks to oust the buyer for failure to pay.[28] | |||||
|
2006-11-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, it is well-settled 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; however, if the contract appears to be contrary to the evident intentions of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former. Moreover, the agreement of the parties may be embodied in only one contract or in two or more separate writings. In such event, the writings of the parties should be read and interpreted together in such a way as to render their intention effective.[32] | |||||