This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2007-02-09 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| As gleaned from the April 13, 1982 deed, the right of respondent to repurchase the property is not incorporated therein. The contract is one of absolute sale and not one with right to repurchase. The law states that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.[56] When the language of the contract is explicit, leaving no doubt as to the intention of the drafters, the courts may not read into it any other intention that would contradict its plain import.[57] The clear terms of the contract should never be the subject matter of interpretation. Neither abstract justice nor the rule of liberal interpretation justifies the creation of a contract for the parties which they did not make themselves, or the imposition upon one party to a contract or obligation to assume simply or merely to avoid seeming hardships.[58] Their true meaning must be enforced, as it is to be presumed that the contracting parties know their scope and effects.[59] As the Court held in Villarica, et al. v. Court of Appeals:[60] | |||||
|
2006-08-31 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| On the second issue, the law is that if the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.[59] When the language of the contract is explicit, leaving no doubt as to the intention of the drafters, the courts may not read into it any other intention that would contradict its plain import.[60] The clear terms of the contract should never be the subject matter of interpretation. Neither abstract justice nor the rule of liberal interpretation justifies the creation of a contract for the parties which they did not make themselves or the imposition upon one party to a contract or obligation not assumed simply or merely to avoid seeming hardships.[61] Their true meaning must be enforced, as it is to be presumed that the contracting parties know their scope and effects.[62] If the parties execute two or more separate writings covering a common transaction and subject matter, the writings should be read and interpreted together to render the parties' intention effective.[63] On the other hand, if the contract is ambiguous or the contracting parties offer conflicting claims on their intent, the trial court, at the first instance, has to ascertain the true intent of the parties, taking into account the contemporaneous and subsequent conduct, actions and words of the parties material to the case,[64] and pertinent facts having a tendency to fix and determine the real intent of the parties and undertaking shall be considered. It is the parties' intention which shall be accorded primordial consideration. The reasonableness of the result obtained, after analysis and construction of the contract/contracts, must also be carefully considered.[65] The ascertained intention of the parties is deemed an integral part of the contract, as though it had been originally expressed in unequivocal terms. The Court will enforce the true agreement of the parties even if the property in question has already been registered and a new transfer certificate of title is issued in the name of the transferee.[66] | |||||
|
2005-08-09 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| At the outset, it must be stressed that only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by the Supreme Court in petitions for review on certiorari.[38] Findings of fact of the CA, affirming those of the trial court, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal.[39] | |||||
|
2003-12-08 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the general rule is that only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court.[18] Factual findings of the appellate court are generally binding on us especially when in complete accord with the findings of the trial court.[19] This is because it is not our function to analyze or weigh the evidence all over again.[20] However, this general rule admits of exceptions, to wit:(a) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (c) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (d) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals was based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the factual findings are conflicting; (f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and, (h) where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[21] | |||||
|
2003-11-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, it is axiomatic that in petitions for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court. Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive on the parties and upon this Court and will not be reviewed or disturbed on appeal. The rule admits of certain exceptions, such as: (a) when the findings of fact of the appellate court are at variance with those of the trial court; (b) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (c) when the judgment itself is based on a misapprehension of facts.[4] As we held in the assailed Decision, petitioner failed to prove that the case at bar falls within the exceptions. | |||||