This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-01-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Essential to contract construction is the ascertainment of the intention of the contracting parties, and such determination must take into account the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties. This intention, once ascertained, is deemed an integral part of the contract.[21] | |||||
|
2006-09-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The form of the instrument cannot prevail over the true intent of the parties as established by the evidence. We have also decreed that in 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 execution of the agreement.[18] In order to ascertain the intention of the parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts should be considered. Once the intention of the parties has been ascertained, that element is deemed as an integral part of the contract as though it has been originally expressed in unequivocal terms.[19] As such, documentary and parol evidence may be submitted and admitted to prove such intention. And, in case of doubt, a contract purporting to be a sale with right to repurchase shall be construed as an equitable mortgage.[20] | |||||