Article 1372

However general the terms of a contract may be, they shall not be understand to comprehend things that are distinct and
cases that are different from those upon which the parties intended to agree.

This article simply implies that if the terms used in the contract or agreement may be of general terms, the interpretation
should not be far from the intentions of the parties. Also such intention is to be determine by the underlying
circumstances.

As a general rule: Where in a contract there are general and special provisions covering the same subject matter that are
inconsistent. The special provisions prevail over the general provisions if the two cannot stand together.

Case:
REYES v. LIMJAP
G.R. No. L-5396 March 12, 1910

FACTS:
Ireneo Felix, through his representative, requested for his parcel of land to be registered. The said land was located
between the land of Braulia Cuepangco and Calle Martinez. It was acquired by purchase from its owner, Vicente
Francisco Ayco. Free from all incumbrances and no one having any right and interest, Ireneo Felix conveyed the said to
parcel land by means of absolute deed to Canuto Reyes, the petitioner-appellee in this case.
However, a presentative of Jacinto Limjap made a written opposition to the application of land registration, alleging that
Jacinto Limjap was the owner and possessor of the land he bought from Braulia Cuepangco.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, the said parcel land was the subject matter of the contract between Jacinto Limjap and Braulia
Cuepangco.

RULING:
No. It was proven during the trial that Crisostomo Marero was the original owner of the land who sold it to Ireneo Felix.
And it does not appear in that Marero transferred his control over the property to Braulia Cuepangco. And There was no
possible reason that existed under the law for considering the latter to be the lawful owner of the land; therefore, she could
neither have disposed of it not sold it to the opponent Limjap.

And considering that the land of the applicant was not the subject matter of contract, for the reason that it did not belong
to the vendor, Braulia Cuepangco, it can no wise be understood as included in the instrument of sale, no matter what may
be the terms of the document.
As provided for by Article 1283 now Article 1372, However general the terms of a contract may be, they shall not be
understood as included therein things and cases different from those with regard to which the persons interested intended
to contract.