Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AGRO CONGLOMERATES v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 179441 2010-08-09	ST. JAMES COLLEGE OF PARAÑAQUE v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK VELASCO JR., J.
4) There must be a valid new contract.[28]
	GR No. 187838 2009-12-23	ADRIATICO CONSORTIUM v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES VELASCO JR., J.
4) There must be a valid new contract.[35]
	GR No. 176917 2009-08-04	CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORP. v. FILIPINAS NACHURA, J.
Indeed, the most fundamental rule in the interpretation of contracts is that, if the terms are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of the contract provisions shall control. However, where some ambiguity exists, in order to determine the intention of the parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts should be considered.[24]
	GR No. 163244 2009-06-22	SPS. JOSE T. VALENZUELA AND GLORIA VALENZUELA v. KALAYAAN DEVELOPMENT PERALTA, J.
Novation is the extinguishment of an obligation by the substitution or change of the obligation by a subsequent one which extinguishes or modifies the first, either by changing the object or principal conditions, or by substituting another in place of the debtor, or by subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor.[29]
	GR No. 163720 2004-12-16	GENEVIEVE LIM v. FLORENCIO SABAN TINGA, J,
The appellate court however erred in ruling that Lim is liable on the checks because she issued them as an accommodation party. Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law defines an accommodation party as a person "who has signed the negotiable instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor or indorser, without receiving value therefor, for the purpose of lending his name to some other person." The accommodation party is liable on the instrument to a holder for value even though the holder at the time of taking the instrument knew him or her to be merely an accommodation party. The accommodation party may of course seek reimbursement from the party accommodated.[34]
	GR No. 145483 2004-11-19	LORENZO SHIPPING CORP. v. BJ MARTHEL INTERNATIONAL 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]