ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1996 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 91935 March 4, 1996 - RODOLFO QUIAMBAO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106043 March 4, 1996 - CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109645 March 4, 1996 - ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. TIRSO VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115365 March 4, 1996 - ESMENIO MADLOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118126 March 4, 1996 - TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-921 March 5, 1996 - AMPARO A. LACHICA v. ROLANDO A. FLORDELIZA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1009 March 5, 1996 - ALBERTO NALDOZA v. JUAN LAVILLES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 111501 March 5, 1996 - PHIL. FUJI XEROX CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 113930 March 5, 1996 - PAUL G. ROBERTS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115548 March 5, 1996 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1039 March 6, 1996 - FE ALBANO MADRID v. RAYMUNDO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 112858-59 March 6, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RALPHY ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120193 March 6, 1996 - LUIS MALALUAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. CBD-174 March 7, 1996 - GIOVANI M. IGUAL v. ROLANDO S. JAVIER

  • G.R. No. 66555 March 7, 1996 - LEONCIO MEJARES, ET AL. v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95353-54 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO PAT

  • G.R. No. 109390 March 7, 1996 - JGB and ASSOCIATES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112445 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS V. PATROLLA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 113710 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND V. JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116011 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RHODESA B. SILAN

  • G.R. No. 117650 March 7, 1996 - SULPICIO LINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120905 March 7, 1996 - RENATO U. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95260 March 8, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO C. PRADO

  • G.R. No. 110983 March 8, 1996 - REYNALDO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2024 March 11, 1996 - SALVADOR T. CASTILLO v. PABLO M. TAGUINES

  • G.R. No. 108625 March 11, 1996 - ALLIANCE OF DEMOCRATIC FREE LABOR ORGANIZATION v. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113194 March 11, 1996 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119381 March 11, 1996 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. JOSE BRILLANTES

  • G.R. No. 96882 March 12, 1996 - EUTIQUIANO PAGARA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109800 March 12, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO N. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 114388 March 12, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO TRILLES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-4-156 March 13, 1996 - IN RE: FERNANDO P. AGDAMAG

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1344 March 13, 1996 - VERONICA GONZALES v. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

  • G.R. No. 101332 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARO BERNAL

  • G.R. No. 101699 March 13, 1996 - BENJAMIN A. SANTOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104088-89 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE JAIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 108743 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNALDO B. DONES

  • G.R. No. 112193 March 13, 1996 - JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112546 March 13, 1996 - NORTH DAVAO MINING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119073 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 120223 March 13, 1996 - RAMON Y. ALBA v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101070 March 14, 1996 - BALAYAN COLLEGES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102062 March 14, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104685 March 14, 1996 - SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119706 March 14, 1996 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73592 March 15, 1996 - JOSE CUENCO BORROMEO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94494 March 15, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO C. LAPURA

  • G.R. No. 103695 March 15, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105819 March 15, 1996 - MARILYN L. BERNARDO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106229-30 March 15, 1996 - LEOVIGILDO ROSALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108001 March 15, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111651 March 15, 1996 - OSMALIK S. BUSTAMANTE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115106 March 15, 1996 - ROBERTO L. DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114988 March 18, 1996 - CATALINO BONTIA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 117667 March 18, 1996 - INLAND TRAILWAYS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-5-42-MTC March 20, 1996 - QUERY OF JUDGE DANILO M. TENERIFE

  • G.R. No. 102360 March 20, 1996 - ROSITA DOMINGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111656 March 20, 1996 - MANUEL MANAHAN, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116665 March 20, 1996 - MELQUIADES D. AZCUNA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-1-07-RTC March 21, 1996 - JDF ANOMALY IN THE RTC OF LIGAO, ALBAY

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-10-06-SCC March 27, 1996 - IN RE: DEMASIRA M. BAUTE

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1071 March 28, 1996 - ELIZABETH ASUMBRADO v. FRANCISCO R. MACUNO

  • G.R. No. 104386 March 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR L. LEVISTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121424 March 28, 1996 - IN RE: MAURO P. MAGTIBAY v. VICENTE VINARAO

  • G.R. No. 90215 March 29, 1996 - ERNESTO ZALDARRIAGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94594 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO REDULOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96178-79 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ESMAQUILAN

  • G.R. No. 97785 March 29, 1996 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 99259-60 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO D. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 103525 March 29, 1996 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104296 March 29, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 106083-84 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUINTIN T. GARRAEZ

  • G.R. No. 106600 March 29, 1996 - COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109312 March 29, 1996 - PLACIDO MIRANDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109614-15 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRONICO GREGORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112346 March 29, 1996 - EVELYN YONAHA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112457-58 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CARTUANO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112678 March 29, 1996 - EDUARDO M . ESPEJO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112708-09 March 29, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112718 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VLADIMIR L. CANUZO

  • G.R. Nos. 113519-20 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO F. PANLILIO

  • G.R. Nos. 114263-64 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN JENN PORRAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115988 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO V. LIAN

  • G.R. No. 116734 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY B. LAURENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116792 March 29, 1996 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117055 March 29, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 117618 March 29, 1996 - VIRGINIA MALINAO v. LUISITO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118509 March 29, 1996 - LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118870 March 29, 1996 - NERISSA Z. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119193 March 29, 1996 - NEMENCIO GALVEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120715 March 29, 1996 - FERNANDO R. SAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121527 March 29, 1996 - MARCELO L. ONGSITCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 102360   March 20, 1996 - ROSITA DOMINGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 102360. March 20, 1996.]

    ROSITA DOMINGO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE, Respondents.

    Rolando S. Javier for Petitioner.

    Macario O. Directo for Private Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS, GENERALLY UPHELD ON APPEAL. — The petitioner is now before this Court raising the same issues brought to respondent court for consideration, viz: (a) the validity of the Compromise Agreement and the partial decision approving the same; and (b) the admission in evidence of the receipts of payment made by private respondent to petitioner. The petition is not impressed with merit and we find no reason to discuss the foregoing issues, the same having been raised before, and resolved at length, by the trial court and respondent court in their respective decisions. We find no reason to reverse the assailed decision of respondent court. Perforce, the partial decision dated December 23, 1961 must accordingly be enforced and executed with deliberate dispatch and without further delay.

    2. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; COMPROMISE, DEFINED. — A compromise is a contract whereby the parties by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Essentially, it is a contract perfected by mere consent, the latter being manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract.

    3. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; JUDICIAL COMPROMISE; EFFECT. — Once an agreement is stamped with judicial approval, it becomes more than a mere contract binding upon the parties; having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of the controversy, it has the force and effect of any other judgment. Consequently, a judgment rendered in accordance with a compromise agreement is immediately executory as there is no appeal from such judgment. The reason for this rule being that when both parties enter into an agreement to end a pending litigation and request that a decision be rendered approving said agreement, it is only natural to presume that such action constitutes an implicit waiver of the right to appeal against said decision.

    4. ID.; ID.; ID.; GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT THEREOF. — A compromise may however be disturbed and set aside for vices of consent or forgery. Hence, where an aggrieved party alleges mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or falsity in the execution of the compromise embodied in a judgment, an action to annul it should be brought before the Court of Appeals, in accordance with Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, which gives that court exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of regional trial courts.

    5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — Petitioner filed an action to annul the compromise judgment with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 120 on the ground of forgery. Said case was however dismissed for failure to prosecute. Clearly then petitioner has forfeited her right to challenge the compromise judgment not only because she did not appeal from the order of dismissal but more so because she ventilated her remedy to the wrong court which had undoubtedly no jurisdiction to annul the judgment of a concurrent court.


    D E C I S I O N


    KAPUNAN, J.:


    The instant case illustrates a long drawn-out litigation between parties who already entered into a compromise agreement some thirty-five (35) years ago and which agreement was given judicial imprimatur. One of them, up to now, still refuses to be bound by the said judicial compromise.

    Petitioner Rosita Domingo was one of the bona fide tenants-occupants of an eighty-seven (87) hectare land located at Barrio Baesa, Caloocan City then known as the Gonzales Estate.

    Upon petition of the tenants sometime in 1947, the Republic of the Philippines through the Rural Progress Administration (RPA) instituted an action which was docketed as Civil Case No. 131 with the then Court of First Instance of Rizal for the expropriation of the Gonzales Estate and its subsequent resale to the tenants thereof. The court rules in favor of the Republic and on appeal to this Court, the said decision was affirmed. 1

    The Republic of the Philippines thereafter acquired title over the estate. Administration of the estate was later transferred to the Philippine Housing and Homesite Corporation (PHHC) by the RPA. With the change in administration came a change of policy with regard to the resale of the subdivided lots. On March 16, 1960, the President ordered PHHC to sell a bigger portion of the estate to persons other than the bona fide tenants-occupants of the estate.

    On October 29, 1960, fifty-two (52) tenants-occupants of the estate petitioner included, filed an action to compel the Republic of the Philippines through the PHHC to sell the entire estate to them pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 539 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Case No. 131. Said case was docketed as Civil Case No. 6376 (later redocketed as Civil Case No. C-760).

    On May 3, 1961, private respondent Araneta Institute of Agriculture (AIA) filed a complaint in intervention on the basis of a document entitled ‘KASUNDUAN NA MAY PAGBIBIGAY KAPANGYARIHAN HINGGIL SA ASYENDA GONZALES SA BAESA, CALOOCAN RIZAL." The said KASUNDUAN was actually a document of sale or transfer whereby the 52 tenants conveyed unto AIA their respective landholdings in the estate. AIA was allowed to intervene.

    On November 28, 1961, AIA submitted to the lower court a Compromise Agreement it entered into with 13 tenants-occupants of the estate. The said agreement reads in full:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

    Intervenor and plaintiffs Fausto Bajamonde, Gregorio Bajamonde, Juan Bajamonde, Damaso Bajamonde, Andres Bajamonde, Perfecto Bajamonde, Sixta Cleofas, Rosita Domingo, Catalina Pascual, Macaria Santos, Evaristo Aquino, Narciso Aquino and Lazaro Pineda, assisted by their respective counsel, respectfully manifest that they have arrived at an amicable settlement of this case, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. That plaintiffs herein admit all the allegations and prayer of intervenor’s complaint in intervention;

    2. That immediately upon acquisition of title to their respective lots, plaintiffs herein shall convey the same to intervenor by way of absolute sale, free from all liens and encumbrances, except any prior lien in favor of defendants, for the purchase price of P5.55 per square meter, to be paid by intervenor, in the following manner:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    P11,600.00 — previously paid to and acknowledge by

    plaintiffs herein.

    110,634.62 — upon execution of this agreement, as

    follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    P60,000.00 — directly to plaintiffs herein.

    50,634.62 — to defendant PHHC, for plaintiffs’ account,

    as 10% initial downpayment on the

    purchase price of the lots, due to said

    defendants from plaintiffs.

    101,269.24 — upon court approval of this agreement —

    to be paid to defendant PHHC, for the

    account of plaintiffs herein, to complete the

    required 30% downpayment on said lots.

    53,335.75 — upon transfer of title in the name of

    intervenor.

    462,692.34 — balance of purchase price, to be liquidated in

    five years, in ten equal semestral installments.

    in accordance with the schedule, marked Annex ‘A’, which is attached hereto and made an integral part thereof.

    3. That the purchase price to be paid by intervenor for the individual lots of plaintiffs herein shall be subject to adjustment, in accordance with the actual survey of said lots to be made by defendant PHHC, duly approved by the proper government office;

    4. That plaintiffs shall, immediately upon demand of intervenor, execute any and all other documents which may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this agreement;

    5. That plaintiffs shall deliver possession of said lots to intervenor, immediately upon payment of the aforesaid sum of P101,269.24, free from all other occupants;

    6. That intervenor is hereby authorized to advance, for the account of plaintiffs herein, any and all amounts necessary to expedite the latter’s acquisition of title, which amounts shall be deduced from the purchase price of their respective lots, due to them from intervenor.

    7. That for the sake of expediency, payments of the amounts mentioned herein above, except those to defendants, shall be made by intervenor thru plaintiff Marciano Baylon, who is hereby authorized by plaintiffs herein to receive the same for and in their behalf, and to issue the corresponding receipts therefor;

    8. That documentation, notarization and other incidental expenses to be incurred in the transfer of title plaintiffs to intervenor shall be for the account of the latter;

    9. That if, for any reason whatsoever, conveyance of title to intervenor could not be affected, plaintiffs herein shall, upon demand from intervenor, reimburse the latter of any and all amounts paid by intervenor under this agreement; provided, however, that intervenor’s right to reimbursement under this agreement shall be without prejudice to other legal remedies which intervenor may elect in the alternative, including the right to ask for and receive the refund of whatever amounts it has advanced or paid for plaintiffs’ account;

    10. That, as security for the performance of plaintiffs’ obligation under this agreement, plaintiff herein hereby assigns, transfers and conveys to intervenor, all their rights, interests and participation over their lots aforementioned;

    11. That in the event of default by either of the parties hereto, to defaulting party shall pay liquidated damages and attorney’s fees equivalent to 25% of the amount involved.

    WHEREFORE, the parties hereto respectfully pray that judgment be rendered in accordance with the foregoing compromise agreement, without pronouncement as to costs.

    Quezon City and Malabon, Rizal, for Pasig, Rizal, November 28, 1961.

    Sgd. Sgd

    FAUSTO BAJAMONDE GREGORIO BAJAMONDE

    Plaintiff Plaintiff

    Sgd. Sgd.

    JUAN BAJAMONDE DAMASO BAJAMONDE

    Plaintiff Plaintiff

    Sgd. Sgd.

    ANDRES BAJAMONDE SIXTA CLEOFAS

    Plaintiff Plaintiff

    Sgd. Sgd.

    PERFECTO BAJAMONDE ROSITA DOMINGO

    Plaintiff Plaintiff

    Sgd. Sgd

    CATALINA PASCUAL MACARIA SANTOS

    Plaintiff Plaintiff

    Sgd. Sgd.

    EVARISTO AQUINO NARCISO AQUINO

    Plaintiff Plaintiff

    Sgd

    LAZARO PINEDA

    Plaintiff

    Sgd.

    CRISPIN D. BAIZAS

    Counsel for Plaintiffs

    Shurdut Bldg., Manila

    ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE

    (Now ARANETA UNIVERSITY)

    Intervenor

    By:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Sgd.

    SALVADOR ARANETA

    ROQUE & DAVID

    By:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Sgd.

    PORFIRIO C. DAVID

    Counsel for Intervenor

    R-410 Phil. Bank of Commerce Bldg.

    Plaza Sta. Cruz, Manila 2

    On December 23, 1961, the trial court approved the above Compromise Agreement in a partial decision embodying the said agreement. 3

    On February 6, 1962, counsel for the tenants filed a motion for immediate execution of the partial decision. The same was granted by the court on February 23, 1962. Thereafter, PHHC filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with this Court seeking to annul the order of execution. On November 5, 1965, said petition was dismissed.

    Meanwhile, some of the 13 tenants who entered into the Compromise Agreement with AIA filed separate proceedings against the latter before the trial courts of Caloocan City to annul the partial decision approving their agreement. All the cases were dismissed. On her part, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 473 but the same was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

    Subsequently, counsel for AIA filed a Motion for issuance of a Writ of Execution of the Partial Decision dated December 23, 1961.

    On May 23, 1986, the lower court issued an order enforcing the said decision, the decretal portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, the PHHC (now National Housing Authority) is ordered to comply with the Partial Decision dated December 23, 1961 by executing a Deed of Conveyance and/or transfer and delivering the titles of the lots originally awarded to plaintiffs Rosita Domingo respecting Lot 48 free from all liens and encumbrances in favor of Intervenor Araneta Institute of Agriculture upon proof of payment by the intervenor of the purchase price.

    So Ordered. 4

    Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above-quoted order but the same was denied on January 22, 1988. 5 In the meantime, even before the court could resolve the motion for reconsideration, intervenor-private respondent filed another motion for execution of the decision of December 23, 1961.

    On July 7, 1988, the trial court issued an order which dispositively reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated January 22, 1988 [filed by intervenor-private respondent] is hereby GRANTED.

    As prayed for, let a writ of execution be issued for the enforcement of the Compromise Agreement dated November 28, 1961 and the partial Decision dated December 23, 1961, ordering plaintiff Rosita Domingo:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. To execute a deed of absolute sale of Lot 48 in favor of Intervenor Araneta Institute of Agriculture; and

    2. To deliver immediately the possession of said lot to said Intervenor Araneta Institute of Agriculture.

    SO ORDERED. 6

    From the said order, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals raising as issues the following, to wit: (a) the validity of the Compromise Agreement and the propriety of its approval in the decision of December 23, 1961; (b) the applicability of the nullification of the Compromise Agreement and Partial Decision by the same court on December 20, 1985; and (c) assuming that the Compromise Agreement is valid, the correctness of the finding that intervenor-private respondent complied with the terms and obligations of the agreement.

    However, petitioner fared no better in the said appellate court. In dismissing her petition, the Court of Appeals declared:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    We shall address the first and second issues.

    Plaintiff-appellant maintains that the so-called compromise agreement dated November 28, 1961 and the partial decision dated December 23, 1961 approving said agreement are null and void, as discussed and decided in the Order of December 20, 1985 . . .

    We find appellant’s contention unmeritorious.

    Plaintiff-appellant filed Civil Case No. 473 against Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Et Al., before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 120, to annul the partial decision of December 23, 1961, involving the thirteen (13) tenants of whom she was one of them. That case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order of dismissal was not appealed.

    x       x       x


    It will be observed that whatever the court a quo said about the Partial Decision dated December 23, 1961, rendered by Judge Andres Reyes, approving and embodying the Compromise Agreement dated November 23, 1961 were obiter dicta. Being a compromise judgment, it was final and immediately executory (Pamintuan v. Muños, 22 SCRA 1109, 1111; Pasay City Government v. CFI Manila, 132 SCRA 156, 157), unless a motion is filed to set aside the compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake, duress, in which event, an appeal may be taken from the order denying the motion (De los Reyes v. Ugarte, 75 Phil. 5050 [1945]; Piano v. Cayanong, Et Al., 7 SCRA 397 [1963]; Cadano, Et. Al. v. Cadano, 49 SCRA 33 [1973]; Zagala v. Jimenez, 152 SCRA 147, 157 [1987]). In the case at bar, no such motion was fled. Moreover, said partial decision of Judge Reyes was not an issue submitted to the trial court in the Motion to Execute Partial Decision dated December 23, 1961 on the basis of the Compromise Agreement dated December 11, 1961. As a matter of fact, the dispositive portion of the Order of December 20, 1985 did not declare the aforesaid partial decision (compromise judgment) dated March 23, 1961 null and void.

    x       x       x


    On the third issue, appellant contends that the alleged intervenor’s compliance with its contractual obligation has not been proven; that the trial court has ruled on the tenants’ right of recission vis-a-vis the alleged agreement; and that the illegible photocopies of alleged payment receipts were not duly presented and offered in evidence.

    Appellant’s contention cannot be sustained.

    To the motion for reconsideration of the Order dated January 22, 1988, filed by Intervenor-appellee on February 19, 1988, has been attached Annexes "A" to "E", including Official Receipts dated December 6, 1961 and December 22, 1961 showing payments made by Intervenor in compliance with the compromise judgment. We agree with the trial court in finding them to be sufficient proof of compliance by the Intervenor with the terms and conditions of the compromise judgment in question. In the Order of July 7, 1988, the trial court ruled:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Now in the intervenor’s Motion for Reconsideration, it has averred that the sum of P101,269.24 have been paid on compliance with the provisions of said Compromise Agreement and which are evidence by documents and receipts marked as Annexes "A" to "E" and Exhibits "1", "1-A" to "1-K" ; Exhibits "4", "4-A" to "4-K" .

    Worthwhile noting is the Official Receipt No. 6094757, marked as Annex "1-D", dated December 6, 1961, evidencing payment of P4,883.00 to plaintiff Rosita Domingo for the ten (10%) percent down payment of the purchase price of the lot awarded to her by the PHHC consisting of 12,800 square meters. Likewise, in another Official Receipt No. 6096479, marked as Annex "4-D", dated December 29, 1961, for the payment of P9,766,00 to plaintiff Rosita Domingo, as part payment of the price of the lot equivalent to twenty (20%) percent of the Gonzales Estate, Baesa, Caloocan City.

    It bears emphasis that the aforementioned payments of P4,683.00 (Annex "1-D") and P9,766.00 (Annex "4-D") to Rosita Domingo are NOT DENIED either in the Opposition to the Mention for Execution or in the Memorandum for Rosita Domingo.

    Parenthetically, the photo copies of the receipts submitted by the intervenor are legible enough for credible accounting purposes, contrary to plaintiff’s claim.

    Viewed from the foregoing, the ineluctably follows, that the Intervenor, indeed, has fulfilled its obligation under the aforementioned compromise agreement of November 28, 1961, as approved by the partial decision dated December 23, 1961. 7

    The petitioner is now before this Court raising the same issues brought to respondent court for consideration, viz: (a) the validity of the Compromise Agreement and the partial decision approving the same; and (b) the admission in evidence of the receipts of payment made by private respondent to petitioner. 8

    The petition is not impressed with merit and we find no reason to discuss the foregoing issues, the same having been raised before, and resolved at length, by the trial court and respondent court in their respective decisions. However, we shall reiterate the applicability of the following pertinent principles to the instant case for clarify and emphasis.

    A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. 9 Essentially, it is a contract perfected by mere consent, the latter being manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. 10 Once an agreement is stamped with judicial approval, it becomes more than a mere contract binding upon the parties; having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of the controversy, it has the force and effect of any other judgment. 11

    Consequently, a judgment rendered in accordance with a compromise agreement is immediately executory as there is no appeal from such judgment. The reason for this rule being that when both parties enter into a agreement to end a pending litigation and request that a decision be rendered approving said agreement, it is only natural to presume that such action constitutes an implicit waiver of the right to appeal against said decision. 12

    A compromise may however be disturbed and set aside for vices of consent or forgery. 13 Hence, where an aggrieved party alleges mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or falsity in the execution of the compromise embodied in a judgment, an action to annul it should be brought before the Court of Appeals, in accordance with Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, which gives that court exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of regional trial courts.

    Here, petitioner filed an action 14 to annul the compromise judgment with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 120 on the ground of forgery. Said case was however dismissed for failure to prosecute. Clearly then petitioner has forfeited her right to challenge the compromise judgment not only because she did not appeal from the order of dismissal but more so because she ventilated her remedy to the wrong court which had undoubtedly no jurisdiction to annul the judgment of a concurrent court.

    All told, we find no reason to reverse the assailed decision of respondent court. Perforce, the partial decision dated December 23, 1961 must accordingly be enforced and executed with deliberate dispatch and without further delay.

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Padilla, Bellosillo, Vitug and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. G.R. No. L-4918, May 14, 1954, 94 Phil. 956.

    2. Rollo, pp. 249-253.

    3. Id., at 255-258, Original Records, pp. 8-10.

    4. Original Records, p. 87.

    5. Id., at 44.

    6. Id., at 93.

    7. Court of Appeals Decision, pp. 8-11; Rollo, pp. 244-247.

    8. Petition, p. 13; Rollo, p. 13-a.

    9. Article 2028, New Civil Code.

    10. Juliana del Rosario v. Hon. Job Madayag, Et Al., G.R. No. 118531, August 28, 1995 citing Go v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 183 SCRA 82, 86 [1990].

    11. Asirot v. Vda. de Rodriguez, 28 SCRA 258 [1969] citing Marquez v. Marquez, 73 Phil. 74 [1941]; See also Soler v. Reyes, 8 SCRA 691 [1963] and Araneta v. Perez, 7 SCRA 933 [1963].

    12. World Machine Enterprises v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 192 SCRA 459 [1990] citing Serrano v. Reyes, 110 Phil 536 [1960].

    13. Periquet, Jr. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 238 SCRA 697, 713 [1994] citing Master Tours and Travel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 321, 325 [1993]; United Housing Corp. v. Dayrit, 181 SCRA 285 [1990]; Binamira v. Ogan-Occena, 148 SCRA 677 [1987]; Go v. Trocino, 114 SCRA 443 [1982]; Sabino v. Cuba, 18 SCRA 981 [1966]; and Araneta v. Perez, supra.

    14. See page 6.

    G.R. No. 102360   March 20, 1996 - ROSITA DOMINGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED