This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2007-11-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| First, being a notarized document, the questioned deed of sale carries the evidentiary weight conferred by law upon duly executed instruments; it is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.[22] Second, not one of the Aleligays, except for petitioner, appeared in court to deny under oath their respective signatures and fingerprints appearing on the questioned deed of sale. On the contrary, respondents presented in evidence the Dactyloscopic Report FP Case No. 84-66 conducted by the NBI confirming the genuineness and authenticity of Eliodoro's signature and the fingerprints of other signatory heirs, namely Maura and Rosario, in the questioned Deed of Sale. Third, respondents presented a joint affidavit executed on September 9, 1967 by petitioner and one Presentacion Sion Vda. de Estialbo, both attesting to the fact of Laserna's continuous possession over Lot No. 1235 for about 20 years up to said date. Fourth, the lease granted in favor of Gregorio Gecarane, Jr. affirms Laserna's possession over Lot No. 1235.[23] Finally, respondents' payment of realty taxes after the consummation of the sale, though not conclusive evidence of ownership, bolsters their right over the property in dispute.[24] | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Thus, the terms and conditions of the contract between the petitioner and the respondent unequivocally expressed in the purchase orders and progress billings must govern the contractual relation of the parties, for these serve as the terms of the agreement, which are binding and conclusive between them. As the Court ruled in Tuazon v. Court of Appeals:[13] | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| A contract may be embodied in two or more separate writings, in which event the writings should be read and interpreted together in such a way as to eliminate seeming inconsistencies and render the parties' intention effectual.[34] In construing a written contract, the reason behind and the circumstances surrounding its execution are of paramount importance to place the interpreter in the situation occupied by the parties concerned at the time the writing was executed.[35] Construction of the terms of a contract, which would amount to impairment or loss of right, is not favored. Conservation and preservation, not waiver, abandonment or forfeiture of a right, is the rule.[36] In case of doubts in contracts, the same should be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests.[37] Moreover, such doubts must be resolved against the person who drafted the deed and who is responsible for the ambiguities in the deed.[38] | |||||
|
2004-12-01 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it has been reiterated in numerous decisions[86] that the parties to a contract may establish any agreements, terms and conditions that they deem convenient; but these should not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.[87] Being precisely violative of anti-graft provisions and contrary to public policy, Section 7.9 must therefore be stricken off as invalid. | |||||
|
2003-04-22 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| This application of this rule can be controverted only by the exceptions set forth in a long line of jurisprudence,[21] none of which is available in the instant case. The CA competently ruled upon the issues raised by petitioners and laid down the proper legal as well as factual bases for its Decision. Petitioners have not given any cogent reason to question its findings that the signatures were forged. | |||||