Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANTONIA TORRES v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 158026 2008-04-23	DORIE ABESA NICOLAS v. DEL-NACIA CORPORATION PUNO, C.J.
undertook under the Agreement turned out to be more onerous than what she expected. Doctrinal is the rule that courts may not extricate parties from the necessary consequences of their acts.[51] That the terms of a contract turn out to be financially disadvantageous to them will not relieve them of their obligations therein.[52]
	GR NO. 126236 2007-01-26	DOMINGO REALTY v. CA VELASCO, JR., J.
In Torres v. Court of Appeals,[54] which was also cited in LL and Company Development and Agro-Industrial Corporation v. Huang Chao Chun,[55] it was held that:Under Article 1315 of the Civil Code, contracts bind the parties not only to what has been expressly stipulated, but also to all necessary consequences thereof, as follows:
	GR NO. 162775 2006-10-27	INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. NOEMI B. AMARILLA CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed that the parties are free to enter into any contract stipulation provided it is not illegal or contrary to public morals. When such agreement freely and voluntarily entered into turns out to be advantageous to a party, the courts cannot "rescue" the other party without violating the constitutional right to contract. Courts are not authorized to extricate the parties from the consequences of their acts. Thus, the fact that the contract stipulations of the parties may turn out to be financially disadvantageous to them will not relieve them of their obligation under the agreement.[25]