- Statute
- Civil Code
- Article
- Art. 1370
- Topic
- Interpretation of Contracts
- Status
- In force
- Book
- BOOK IV Obligations and Contracts
- Title
- TITLE II CONTRACTS
- Chapter
- CHAPTER 5 Interpretation of Contracts
- Formerly
- Art. 1281 of the old Civil Code
- Year
- 1949
- Cited by
- Multiple Supreme Court decisions
The provision
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. If the words appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former. (1281)
Intellegal Wiki · In plain terms
When a contract's wording is clear and its meaning is not in doubt, that literal wording governs. But if the words plainly contradict what the parties evidently intended, their real intention prevails over the literal text. This guides how contracts are read.
An editorially maintained plain-language explanation of this provision — not legal advice.
Intellegal Wiki · How the courts apply it
In Vicente J. Santi v. Hon. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held: Granted the petition and reversed the CA; a lease clause making the term 'extendable' requires a new mutual agreement and does not effect an automatic renewal, applying Articles 1370 and 1372 on contract interpretation.
One leading Supreme Court case applying this provision.
Cases applying this article
- Dr. Jose Cesar Cabrera v. Ameco Contractors Rental G.R. No. 201560
- Vicente J. Santi v. Hon. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 93625
- Marvin C. Amistoso v. First Leisure Ventures Group G.R. No. 220542
- Teresita E. Pascual v. Encarnacion Pangyarihan Ang G.R. No. 235711
- Power Sector Assets v. Sem-Calaca Power Corporation G.R. No. 204719
- Enrique C. Abad v. Goldloop Properties G.R. No. 168108
- Inocente Leonardo v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82457
- Spouses Leoncio G. Cifra v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 91901
Other Supreme Court decisions also apply this article.