Oblicon Cases Azcuna Jr.

v CA- The freedom of the contracting parties to make

stipulations in their contract provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public policy, or public order is so settled. - The petitioner cannot evade
further liability for liquidated damages, forafter entering into such an agreement,
petitioner cannot thereafter turn his back on his word. Manila Bay Club Corp. v CAThe lease contract was, as claimed by respondents, indeed the productof mutual
agreement between parties, and not a take it or leave it proposition adhered to
helplessly by the petitioner. - Contracts are respected as the law between the
contracting parties, and they may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and
conditions as they may want to include. s long as such agreements are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy, or public order they shall have
the force of law between the parties. Teves v Peoples Homesite and Housing
Corporation- This court held that a person who is not a party obliged principally or
substantially in a contract may e!ercise an action for nullity of the contract if he is
pre"udiced in his rights with respect to the one of the contracting parties and can
show detriment which would positively result to him from the contract. - The
defendants have not acted in good faith# that in the performance of their duties,
they did not give the plainti$ her due# that the defendants willfully cause in"ury to
the plainti$ in violation of a policy of the %&&C, foud herself a t a disadvantage
because 'elisenda who had availed the help of an in(uential politician ) a
circumstance which may "ustify a recourse to the court for the protection of her
right. rtigas Company v CA- real party in interest is de*ned as the party who
stands to be bene*tted of in"ured by the "udgement or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit. - %rivate respondent is a real party in this case because it is his
acts which are in issue and his interest in said issue cannot be a mere incidental
interest. Pa!istan "nternational Airlines v ple - Counter+balancing the principle of
autonomy of contracting parties is the equally general rule that provisions of
applicable law, especially provisions relating to matters a$ected with public policy,
are deemed written into the contract. - %arties may not contract away applicable
provisions of law especially peremptory provisions dealing with matters heavily
impressed with public interest. P#ilippine American $eneral "nsurance v MutucThe appellant contends that the stipulation any e!tension without the need for
him being noti*ed was null and void being contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public policy or public order. - &e would premise it on the indemnity agreement
being a contract of adhesion. &e was not at all compelled to agree to it. &e was free
to act either way. &e had a choice. t may be more o$ensive to public policy, let
alone morals or good customs, if thereafter he would be allowed to go back on his
word. %e &eon v CA- The court *nds and hold that the cause or consideration for
'acaria in having e!ecuted the agreement letter was the termination of the marital
relationship between, her son -ose icente and /ylvia. - f the stipulation is
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, the contract is
void and ine!istent from the beginning.