And despite Trump`s transactional attitude toward the VFA and a remark by Duterte`s spokesman that the Philippines has not attempted to renegotiate the deal, silent talks must have taken place behind the scenes between defense officials and diplomats over the past four months. On April 19, the heads of state and government of both countries spoke by telephone, in which Trump pledged an additional $5.3 million to help the Philippines fight the spread of Covid-19. According to CNN, the two men also discussed ways to strengthen security relations between the United States and the Philippines. It does not take much imagination to understand that the VFA would have been at the centre of the concerns. The result was that the present plaintiff, when he entered into the lease agreement on that property after the death of his uncle, entered into an agreement on the lease of the property proper to the truth – because in reality, that fishery was tied to the alliance and belonged to him, as did the lands of Ballysadare; That is why, he says, I entered into the agreement as part of a common mistake and I have the right to be exempt from it. The first of the four agreements, the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), was signed in 2002 by India and the United States following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the terrorist attack on Parliament. This agreement allowed only the exchange of military information between the two countries with the supposed aim of anticipating terrorist threats. As a result, at the time of the lease agreement, which is intended to submit this petition, the parties dealt with each other in reciprocal errors as to their respective rights. The petitioner did not think that he was, in fact, a tenant of the life of the fishery. The other parties followed their father`s impression that he (his father) was the owner of the fishery and that the fishery had gone down to their home. In such a case, there can be no doubt as to a court`s capital rule regarding the handling of that agreement. It is said „but in this maxim, the word „juice“ is used in the sense of the expression of the common law, the ordinary law of the land. But if the word „juice“ is used to refer to a private right, that maxim has no application.
Private property rights are a fact; It can also be the result of a case; However, if the parties enter into a contract as part of a reciprocal error and a misunderstanding of their neighbouring and respective rights, this is the case where that agreement can be postponed as a common error.