This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The said agreement prepared by petitioner and notarized by its in-house counsel clearly recognizes respondent's entitlement to the benefits stated therein. Petitioner moreover unequivocally obligated itself to extend the said benefits to respondent. Rudimentary is the principle that a contract is the law between the contracting parties.[13] Further, when the language of the contract is clear and plain or readily understandable by any ordinary reader, there is absolutely no room for interpretation or construction and the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.[14] The Court then fully agrees with the CA's declaration that the contract "leaves no other recourse for the courts than to enforce the contractual stipulations therein, in the exact manner agreed upon and written."[15] | |||||
|
2008-07-21 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The document that spells out the nature of the transaction of the parties is the Deed of Conditional Sale. Stemming from the compromise agreement entered into by Titan and petitioners, the Deed of Conditional Sale has superseded the Deed of Sale of Real Estate which is the original contract. The whole essence of a compromise is that by making reciprocal concessions, the parties avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced.[27] A compromise agreement can be entered into without novating or supplanting existing contracts,[28] but in this case, the irreconcilable incompatibility between the Deed of Sale of Real Estate and the Deed of Conditional Sale inevitably resulted in extinctive novation.[29] | |||||