Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > November 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14780 November 29, 1960 - POMPEYO L. PALARCA v. RESTITUTA BAROL DE ANZON

110 Phil 194:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-14780. November 29, 1960.]

POMPEYO L. PALARCA, plaintiff and appellee, v. RESTITUTA BAROL DE ANZON, and ARTURO ANZON, defendants and appellants.

Desquitado & Acurantes for Appellants.

Angeles, Maskariño & Angeles for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDGMENT BASED ON COMPROMISE AGREEMENT; VALID AND ENFORCEABLE NOTWITHSTANDING FAILURE TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW. — In contemplation of law, the court is deemed to have adopted the same statement of facts and conclusions of law made and resolved by the parties themselves in their compromise agreement; and their consent has rendered it both unnecessary and improper for the court to still make preliminary adjudication of the matters thereunder covered (see Vol. 3, Freeman on Judgments, sec. 1350, pp. 2773-2775.) Decisions of similar tenor and form as the one under consideration have been given effect by this Court in the cases of Rivero v. Rivero, 59 Phil. 15; and Enriquez v. Padilla, 77 Phil. 373. And as to the enforcement of such judgments, this Court has likewise held that "a compromise made in court may be enforced by execution, in accordance with the provisions of article 1816 of the Civil Code (now. Art. 2037). . . . ." (Yboleon v. Sison, 59 Phil., 281).

2. EXECUTION; WHEN HEARING TO DETERMINE SATISFACTION OR NON-SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT MAY BE RAISED DURING PROCESS OF EXECUTION. — Appellants’ contention that the lower court should have first ordered a hearing on whether or not there had been a compliance, total or partial, of the judgment, before it ordered due execution thereof, is untenable, because that procedural recourse might have been proper if defendants had made any definite claims that they caused such payment to be made. Moreover, the question of satisfaction of a judgment may be raised even during the process of execution and not necessarily prior to the issuance of the writ.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


On October 12, 1955, Atty. Pompeyo L. Palarca filed in the Court of First Instance of Davao a complaint against Restituta Barol de Anzon and Arturo Anzon for the recovery of P3,000.00 (allegedly representing the sum which the latter agreed to pay to the plaintiff for his professional services in the successful prosecution before the Bureau of Lands of the defendants’ Sales Application No. V-707), and to recover also attorney’s fees and damages. Defendants’ answer contained admissions, denials, affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. Issues having thus been joined, the case was set for hearing on March 28, 1957, at which date the parties merely submitted a compromise agreement and sought judgment in accordance therewith. On the same day, the court rendered judgment, reciting as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When this case was called for trial today, the parties submitted the following COMPROMISE AGREEMENT which read as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘COME NOW the parties in the above-entitled case, assisted by their respective counsels and to this Honorable Court respectfully submit the following COMPROMISE AGREEMENT for the consideration of this Court, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. — The defendants acknowledge and admit to be indebted to the plaintiff, in the amount of THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P3,000.00), which amount therein defendants, jointly and severally, agree and bind themselves to pay to said plaintiff, on or before July 1, 1958;

2. — That in addition to the aforecited principal obligation, the herein defendants further bind themselves to pay plaintiff by way of attorney’s fees the sum of Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00), in the following manner, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

P100.00 — on or before April 30, 1957

P100.00 — on or before May 31, 1957

P100.00 — on or before June 30, 1957;

3. — That the herein plaintiff hereby waives all further claims against the defendants under their complaint in this case except as agreed upon and stipulated in the foregoing paragraphs;

4. — That the defendants waive and renounce and therefore ask for the dismissal of their COUNTERCLAIM against herein plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to render judgment pursuant to the foregoing COMPROMISE AGREEMENT, without special pronouncement as to costs.

x       x       x


WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders decision in this case pursuant to the above-quoted Compromise Agreement, advising the parties to comply strictly with the terms and conditions therein stipulated, without special pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

Because of defendants’ failure to pay, the court, on plaintiff’s motion, issued on July 12, 1958 a writ of execution of the judgment. From this order and another order dated July 26, 1958, denying their motion for reconsideration, the defendants interposed the present appeal.

Appellants question in effect the validity of the judgment aforequoted, upon the contention that the lower court, in merely transcribing the compromise agreement, has decision, as the law requires. There is no merit in the argument. In contemplation of law, the court is deemed to have adopted the same statement of facts and conclusions of law made and resolved by the parties themselves in their compromise agreement; and their consent has rendered it both unnecessary and improper for the court to still make preliminary and adjudication of the matters thereunder covered (see Vol. 3, Freeman on Judgments, sec. 1350, pp. 2773-2775). Decisions of similar tenor and form as the one under consideration have been given effect or upheld by us in the cases of Rivero v. Rivero, 59 Phil., 15; and Enriquez v. Padilla, 77 Phil 373. And as to the enforcement of such judgments, in one case we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"According to the legal provision cited above (art. 1809, Civil Code), a compromise may either be judicial or extrajudicial, depending upon whether its purpose be to terminate a suit already instituted or to avoid the provocation thereof. In the former case, the compromise is deemed judicial while in the latter extrajudicial.

Whether it be judicial or extrajudicial, a compromise has, with respect to the parties, the same authority as res judicata with the sole difference that only a compromise made in court may be enforced by execution, in accordance with the provisions of article 1816 of the Civil Code (now art. 2037). . . ." (Yboleon v. Sison, 59 Phil. 281).

The case of Saminiada v. Mata, 92 Phil., 426; 49 Off. Gaz., 77, cited by the appellants, finds no application in this case. As pointed out in a subsequent ruling, in the Saminiada case, the "judgment was not considered final because a commissioner designated by the parties was still to segregate from a disputed parcel of land the portion to be awarded to one of the parties and this Court said that ‘for all practical purposes, the proceedings after the compromise agreement was a partition of real estate’ which, according to the Rules, needed court approval" (Bodiongan v. Ceniza, 102 Phil., 730; 54 Off. Gaz., [35] 8058). Here, however, the compromise agreement sufficiently discloses that defendants are indebted, jointly and severally, to the plaintiff in the amount therein stated and are willing to pay the same on the dates they themselves fixed. Nothing else was left to be done by the court, other than to enforce or execute its judgment based on the compromise. In other words, the decision was complete in itself.

It is urged that the lower court should have first ordered a hearing on whether or not there had been a compliance, total or partial, of the judgment awarding P3,000.00 to the plaintiff, before it ordered due execution thereof. That procedural recourse might have been proper if defendants had made any definite claim that they caused such payment to be made. Neither here nor in the court below, however, did they make any allegation to that effect. Moreover, the question of satisfaction of a judgment may be raised even during the process of execution and not necessarily prior to the issuance of the writ. It is thus clear that this appeal was interposed solely to delay payment of a just debt.

Wherefore, the orders appealed from are affirmed, with treble costs against the appellants.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11001 November 23, 1960 - FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    110 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-12125 November 23, 1960 - LUIS G. ABLAZA v. AMANCIO SYCIP

    110 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-13251 November 23, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    110 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-14223 November 23, 1960 - SABINA SANTIAGO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

    110 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-14569 November 23, 1960 - BENITO CODILLA v. JOSE L. MARTINEZ

    110 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-14641 November 23, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA

    110 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-14764 November 23, 1960 - CENON VILLANUEVA v. BARBER WILHELMSEN LINE

    110 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-14864 November 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO SOLON

    110 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-14897 November 23, 1960 - JESUS NEPOMUCENO v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    110 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. L-15904 November 23, 1960 - ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

    110 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-16022 November 23, 1960 - NATALIA B. NICOMEDES v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    110 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-13114 November 25, 1960 - ELENITA LEDESMA SILVA v. ESTHER PERALTA

    110 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-15276 November 28, 1960 - EPIFANIO J. ALANO v. CLARO CORTES

    110 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-7330 November 29, 1960 - JOSE BENARES v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

    110 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-10508 November 29, 1960 - PO ENG TRADING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-10810 November 29, 1960 - JOSEFINA RUIZ DE LUZURIAGA BLANCO v. COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    110 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-10836 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: PROCOPY MOSCAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    110 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-11325 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOTO BALONTO

    110 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-11482 November 29, 1960 - ESTEBAN T. BUMANGLAG v. JOSE FERNANDEZ

    110 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-11837 November 29, 1960 - MAGDALENA G. VDA. DE CUAYCONG v. CRISTETA L. VDA. DE SENGBENGCO

    110 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-12275 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO RUBINIAL

    110 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-12508 November 29, 1960 - JOSE L. LAGRIMAS v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

    110 Phil 127

  • G.R. Nos. L-13107-08 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIO DELMAS

    110 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-13173 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SORIO

    110 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-14217 November 29, 1960 - LUZ H. COLOMA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-14274 November 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    110 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-14283 November 29, 1960 - GIL BALBUNA v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

    110 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-14382 November 29, 1960 - REMEDIOS CUENCO VDA. DE BORROMEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-14559 November 29, 1960 - REYNALDO MADRIÑAN v. VICENTE G. SINCO

    110 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-14567 November 29, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-14594 November 29, 1960 - SEVERINO CAÑGAS v. TAN CHUAN LEONG

    110 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14611 November 29, 1960 - EVANGELINO LASERNA v. MARIA JAVIER

    110 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-14656 November 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-14682 November 29, 1960 - FRANCISCO EVARISTO v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA

    110 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-14690 November 29, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. JOSE T. GARCIA, SR.

    110 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-14769 November 29, 1960 - LAURO P. LEVISTE v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    110 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-14780 November 29, 1960 - POMPEYO L. PALARCA v. RESTITUTA BAROL DE ANZON

    110 Phil 194

  • G.R. Nos. L-14785 & L-14923 November 29, 1960 - FELIX ABE v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION

    110 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-14983 November 29, 1960 - AGRIPINA VDA. DE ALBURO v. FILOMENA VDA. DE UMBAO

    110 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-15231 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO PERVEZ

    110 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-15271 November 29, 1960 - ONG YET MUA HARDWARE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    110 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-15312 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: JUAN TACDORO v. JESUS ARCENAS

    110 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-15439 November 29, 1960 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN.

    110 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-15551 November 29, 1960 - DAVID CONSUNJI v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-15593 November 29, 1960 - MARIA BALDO v. PEDRO GUERRERO

    110 Phil 235

  • G.R. Nos. L-15618, L-16000 & L-16116 November 29, 1960 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-15671 November 29, 1960 - AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. v. RICHARD A. KLEPPER

    110 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-15804 November 29, 1960 - SANCHO B. DE LEON v. ESTANISLAO FAUSTINO

    110 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-15925 November 29, 1960 - ESTELA FRANCISCO DE LASALA v. PEDRO SARNATE

    110 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-16028 November 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO URTULA

    110 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. L-16030 November 29, 1960 - SEGUNDA INOCANDO v. JUAN INOCANDO

    110 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-16068 November 29, 1960 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF GERVACIO TANJANGCO

    110 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-16093 November 29, 1960 - LOCAL 7, PRESS & PRINTING FREE WORKERS v. EMILIANO TABIGNE

    110 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-16406 November 29, 1960 - PRIMO QUETULIO v. DELFIN B. FLORES

    110 Phil 284

  • G.R. Nos. L-16409 & L-16416 November 29, 1960 - ALEJANDRO L. GUMPAL v. MANUEL ARRANZ

    110 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-16523 November 29, 1960 - LUIS G. PERALTA v. FELIXBERTO SERRANO

    110 Phil 301