This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-10-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is noted that when the contract of lease was executed, Uniwide was unaware that the property leased by it was owned by another person other than Dolores Baello. Nevertheless, Uniwide cannot avail of the rights of a builder in good faith under Article 448[49] of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 546 of the same Code, which provides for full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made, as the said provisions apply only to a possessor in good faith who builds on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof.[50] It does not apply where one's only interest is that of a lessee under a rental contract.[51] | |||||
|
2008-12-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In support of their contention that the award of attorney's fees was illegal or erroneous, petitioners point to the unqualified rate of 5% stipulated in the promissory note as the "stipulated amount" which was way lower than the 20% as awarded by the RTC. Petitioners cited the case of Chua v. Court of Appeals[7] where the Court ruled that is not the province of the court to alter a contract by construction or to make a new contract for the parties; its duty is confined to the interpretation of the one which they have made for themselves, without regard to its wisdom or folly, as the court cannot supply material stipulations or read into contract words which it does not contain. The testimony of Atty. Edmundo O. Reyes that the attorney's fees should be 20% of the outstanding balance cannot prevail over the 5% stipulated in the promissory note. Citing the case of Bañas v. Asia Pacific Finance Corporation,[8] petitioners maintained that oral evidence cannot prevail over the written agreement of the parties. | |||||
|
2002-06-26 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Under the Rules of Court, any objection to the admissibility of evidence should be made at the time such evidence is offered or soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility becomes apparent,[18] otherwise the objection will be considered waived and such evidence will form part of the records of the case as competent and admissible.[19] Failure to object to the parol evidence constitutes a waiver to its admissibility.[20] By his cross-examination, respondent has waived his right to object to parol evidence.[21] He cannot now contend that this issue was not raised before the trial court as this was threshed out during the trial. | |||||