This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2001-11-29 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| 1987. However, novation is never presumed.[50] Also, the title of a contract does not determine its nature. On the contrary, it is the specific provisions of the contract which dictate its nature.[51] Furthermore, where a contract is susceptible of two (2) interpretations, one that would make it valid and another that would make it invalid, the latter interpretation is to be adopted.[52] The assailed agreement of 18 May 1992, "Renewal of Contract of Lease," merely states that the term of the contract would be for ten (10) years starting 1 September 1987. This is hardly conclusive of the existence of an intention by the parties to novate the contract of 23 September 1987. Nor can it be argued that there is an implied novation for the requisite incompatibility between the original contract and the subsequent one is not present.[53] Based on this factual milieu, the presumption of validity of contract cannot be said to have been overturned. Respondent ASSOCIATION claims that the Decision of the Office of the President declaring null and void the lease contracts of 18 May 1992 and 25 May 1992 should be counted in its favor. | |||||