This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-11-12 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Court is, therefore, not precluded from looking into the real intentions of the parties in order to resolve the present controversy. For that reason, the Court takes guidance from Article 1370 of the Civil Code, which instructs that "if the words [of a contract] appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former." Indeed, it is firmly settled that clarity of contract terms and the name given to it does not bar courts from determining the true intent of the parties. In Zamora vs. Court of Appeals,[7] the Court elucidated that | |||||
|
2006-08-10 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| [i]n determining the nature of a contract, courts are not bound by the title or name given by the parties. The decisive factor in evaluating such agreement is the intention of the parties, as shown not necessarily by the terminology used in the contract but by their conduct, words, actions and deeds prior to, during and immediately after executing the agreement. As such therefore, documentary and parol evidence may be submitted and admitted to prove such intention.[12] | |||||
|
2000-01-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner argues that the terms of the contract are clear that it is one of sale. It is firmly settled in jurisprudence, however, that clarity of contract terms and the name given to it does not bar us from determining the true intent of the parties. Indeed, in Zamora vs. Court of Appeals,[8] it was reiterated that -- | |||||