This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2010-03-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Contracts are the law between the contracting parties. Sale, by its very nature, is a consensual contract, because it is perfected by mere consent. The essential elements of a contract of sale are the following: (a) consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in exchange for the price; (b) determinate subject matter; and (c) price certain in money or its equivalent. All these elements are present in the instant case.[19] | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The "parol evidence rule" forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that, at or before the execution of the parties' written agreement, other or different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written contract. When an agreement has been reduced to writing, the parties cannot be permitted to adduce evidence to prove alleged practices which to all purposes would alter the terms of the written agreement. Whatever is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived and abandoned.[14] None of the above-cited exceptions finds application to the instant case, more particularly, the alleged failure of the contract to express the true intent and agreement of the parties nor did Zamora raise any of the issues at the proceedings before the trial court. | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We rule for the respondents. To begin with, we agree with petitioners' claim that the parol evidence rule does not apply to the facts of this case. First, the parol evidence rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument by testimony or other evidence purporting to show that, "at or before" the execution of the parties' written agreement, other or different terms were agreed upon by the parties, varying the purport of the written contract.[10] Notably, the claimed verbal agreement was agreed upon not prior to but "subsequent to" the written agreement. Second, the validity of the written agreement is not the matter which is being put in issue here. What is questioned is the validity of the claim that a subsequent verbal agreement was agreed upon by the parties after the execution of the written agreement which substantially modified their earlier written agreement. | |||||
|
2007-02-09 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We, however, do not agree. The contract between Camacho and respondent is evidenced by a written document signed by both parties denominated as Contract of Attorney's Fee. It is an established rule that written evidence is so much more certain and accurate than that which rests in fleeting memory only; that it would be unsafe, when parties have expressed the terms of their contract in writing, to admit weaker evidence to control and vary the stronger, and to show that the parties intended a different contract from that expressed in the writing signed by them.[48] Moreover, the moment a party affixes her signature thereon, he or she is bound by all the terms stipulated therein and is open to all the legal obligations that may arise from their breach.[49] | |||||
|
2005-12-19 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In the case where the area of the immovable is stated in the contract based on an estimate, the actual area delivered may not measure up exactly with the area stated in the contract. According to Article 1542[11] of the Civil Code, in the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or decrease of the price although there be a greater or lesser area or number than that stated in the contract. However, the discrepancy must not be substantial. A vendee of land, when sold in gross or with the description "more or less" with reference to its area, does not thereby ipso facto take all risk of quantity in the land. The use of "more or less" or similar words in designating quantity covers only a reasonable excess or deficiency.[12] | |||||
|
2004-10-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Specifically, in the case of a contract of sale, required is the concurrence of three elements, to wit: (a) consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in exchange for the price; (b) determinate subject matter, and (c) price certain in money or its equivalent.[35] Such contract is born from the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price.[36] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In the interpretation of a contract, the literal meaning of its stipulations controls, if their terms are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties.[73] When "there is no ambiguity in the language of a contract, there is no room for construction,[74] only compliance."[75] This rule applies to the Instruction to Bidders, which provides that "failure to execute the Contract shall constitute a breach of agreement as effected by acceptance of the proposal."[76] The language is clear and, like contracts in general, is the law between the parties.[77] The contract must be fulfilled according to its literal sense.[78] | |||||
|
2003-10-08 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| This issue involves calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses. As a rule, a party may raise only questions of law in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below.[32] More so in the instant case, where the Court of Appeals affirmed the factual findings of the trial court.[33] | |||||