This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-04-13 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| 1.5 THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DEFENDANTS, IN SOLIDUM, TO PAY PLAINTIFF 10% OF THE PRINCIPAL OBLIGATION FOR AND AS REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES. The CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed in toto the ruling of the trial court.[16] Citing Article 1370 of the Civil Code and related cases,[17] it declared that if the terms of a contract are clear with no doubt as to the intentions of the contracting parties, then the literal meaning of the stipulations shall control. It held that the disputed paragraph 8 of the deed is plain and unambiguous: in case respondent failed to pay the balance, the earnest money would be forfeited, but the first payment shall be returned to respondent. The appellate court declared that petitioner's obligation to return the first payment was an unconditional one.[18] | |||||