Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > March 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 171850 : March 21, 2012] EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO:




THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 171850 : March 21, 2012]

EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 March 2012, which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 171850 (EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO.) - The instant petition for review on certiorari originated from a suit for Injunction with Damages filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio and Benguet by herein respondent against herein petitioner.

In her complaint, respondent alleged that she is the owner of a parcel of land located at Tawang, La Trinidad, Benguet; fronting her lot is a small shop owned by petitioner which stands on respondent's road right of way, encroaches on her lot and partially blocks her entrance and exit; sometime in January 1990, petitioner started to construct a building in front of respondent's property which does not only occupy portions of her lot but also entirely blocks her access to the national road; respondent made known to petitioner her objection to the said construction, to no avail.

Petitioner denied that he encroached on respondent's property claiming that his shop was erected on a portion of a lot he owns; the shop has been in existence since 1971 and that the alleged construction is a mere renovation of the said structure; his dispute with respondent over her supposed right of way was already resolved through an amicable settlement between him and respondent on October 7, 1989; the action for injunction is barred by res judicata as the same facts and issues were raised in a previous case involving the respondent and another person with petitioner as intervenor, which action was later dismissed on the basis of an amicable settlement among the parties.

In her reply, respondent countered that she tolerated the existence of petitioner's shop on her property, because it was then temporary and small; she admitted the execution of an amicable settlement between her and petitioner over the disputed right of way, but asserted that the latter never complied with the same; she refuted petitioner's claim of ownership of the lot where the subject shop was erected, asserting that it, in fact, occupies a portion of her lot and her road right of way.

After trial, the RTC rendered judgment dismissing the case on grounds of res judicata and lack of cause of action. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the RTC.

Aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA).

On February 24, 2006, the CA rendered its Decision,[1] the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio & Benguet, Branch 8, La Trinidad, Benguet, in Civil Case No. 90-CV-0452 dated April 29, 1993 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Instead, a new one is rendered granting the appellant's complaint enjoining the appellee from continuing with the subject construction. Appellee is likewise ordered to pay the appellant attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00. 

SO ORDERED.[2]

Petitioner then filed the present petition for review assailing the above-quoted Decision of the CA.

Respondent filed her Comment.[3]

After petitioner filed a Manifestation indicating that his Reply to respondent's Comment would be a mere rehash of his petition,[4] the Court resolved to dispense with the filing of the said Reply.[5]

Assisted by their respective counsels, the parties are now before this Court praying that the Compromise Agreement they have entered into pending resolution of the instant petition be considered in the disposition thereof; that the said Agreement be approved and judgment be rendered in accordance with its terms and conditions.

The Compromise Agreement is reproduced in full below:

  COMPROMISE AGREEMENT  

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THIS HONORABLE COURT. The herein Plaintiff and Defendant had agreed to finally settle their dispute so that herein parties and their respective counsels hereby respectfully submit this Compromise Agreement. 

The herein defendant and plaintiff hereby agree that the premises subject of their dispute shall be divided between them in the following manner: 

  1. The concrete structure introduced by defendant and the lot on which it was constructed will be turned over to the possession of the herein plaintiff and/or her assigns and shall benefit from it in the concept of an owner. For this purpose, the defendant and all his assigns and transferees shall hereby WAIVE and QUITCLAIM all their interests, rights, and participation over the same in favor of herein plaintiff.
     
  2. In return, herein plaintiff hereby pay the amount of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php120,000.00) as payment for the abovementioned construction erected by the defendant which the latter waive and quitclaim in favor of herein plaintiff and all her assigns and transferees.
     
  3. Herein parties hereby mutually agree that a three meter alley or road right of way shall be allotted by herein defendant as an access road leading for (sic) the property of the plaintiff (the three meter alley shall be measured from the wall of the structure).
     
  4. Herein defendant undertakes to vacate and demolish his structure situated at the back of the store in front of the house of herein plaintiff to pave way for the plaintiff and her assigns to occupy and possess the same.
     
  5. Herein parties hereby mutually agree that the frontage, which shall be allocated in favor of herein defendant, shall be that premises from the existing riprap in front of the plaintiff's house towards their side.
     
  6. Herein parties hereby mutually agree that all encroaches (sic) by herein plaintiff on the claim of herein defendant's lot shall be settled and defendant will no longer claim on the encroachment by plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff shall allow that her frontage located towards the side of the defendant's house shall be occupied and possessed by defendant and his assigns and transferees.
     
  7. The herein parties mutually agree that the existing canal between their respective lots shall be their common boundary to be considered in the survey to be undertaken in the application for their respective titles over their respective parcels of land.
     
  8. Herein parties undertakes (sic) to execute and sign whatever documents needed by each other in the course of their respective application for certificate of title and other related documents to support each other's claims over their respective properties. 

WHEREFORE, the herein parties hereby respectfully pray that the Honorable Court will issue an order or resolution based on the foregoing compromise agreement.

PRAYER  

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to consider this Compromise Agreement and to issue a resolution based thereon. Other just and equitable reliefs under the circumstances as (sic) also prayed for. 

November 30, 2011. La Trinidad, Benguet, for Manila, Philippines.

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
(Signed)
(Signed)
ROSITA DEPONIO
EDGARDO BAUTISTA
Plaintiff
Defendant
  
Witnessed by their respective Children:

  
(Signed)
  MELCHOR P. DEPONIO
(Signed)
  ANGELINE B. CARANTES
  
(Signed)
CHRISTOPHER P. DEPONIO
(Signed)
  DORIS D. BAUTISTA
  
(Signed)
  EUGENE P. DEPONIO
(Signed)
  JOSEPH D. BAUTISTA
  
(Signed)
  LORETO P. DEPONIO
(Signed)
OFELIA D. BAUTISTA
  
(Signed)
  PONCIANO P. DEPONIO

  
(Signed)
  ANNIE P. DEPONIO

  
(Signed)
SUSANA C. GAPLA-EW-UMAYAT
  Counsel for Plaintiff
(Signed)
  ABELARDO C. ESTRADA
  Counsel for the Defendant

Article 2028 of the Civil Code provides that a compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Under Article 1306 of the same Code, contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions as they deem convenient, provided that these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. The law not merely authorizes, but even encourages, the amicable settlement of disputes between parties and it does not limit such compromise to cases about to be filed but also to cases already pending in court.[6] 

In the instant case, the Court finds that the above Compromise Agreement was validly executed and not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the above-quoted Compromise Agreement is hereby APPROVED  and judgment is hereby rendered in accordance therewith.

The parties are hereby enjoined to FAITHFULLY COMPLY with the covenants, terms and conditions of the said Agreement.

The case is considered CLOSED AND TERMINATED. (Perlas-Bernabe, J., no part; Carpio, J., additional member, per raffle dated March 21, 2012.)

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


[1] Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring.

[2] Rollo, p. 42. 

[3] Id. at 73. 

[4] Id. at 88. 

[5] Id. at 91. 

[6] Civil Code, Art. 2029; Heirs of Alfredo Zabala v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189602, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 387, 391.




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






March-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 192822 : January 16, 2012] PEOPLE OE THE PHILIPPINES v. RODOLFO MONTEMAYOR Y TAMAYO

  • [G.R. No. 199796 : March 05, 2012] ROMEO M. SARMIENTO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 187571 : March 05, 2012] FILIPINO ACADEMY OF MOVIE ARTS AND SCIENCES, INC., REPRESENTED BY JUMMY A. TIU V. ART M. PADUA, ANGEL CALSO, UP THEATER, REPRESENTED BY ITS BUSINESS MANAGER VONN PERDON GOLFO, AND ABC TV-5, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ROBERTO BARRIERO AND DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM ACQUISITION VICTORINO VIANZON

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2906 (Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 10-3440-P) : March 05, 2012] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CESAR V. ACANCE, RECORDS OFFICER I, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, QUEZON CITY

  • [G.R. No. 200210 : March 05, 2012] BENJAMIN DE VILLA Y CANTERO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [A.C. No. 4500 : March 06, 2012] BAN HUA U. FLORES v. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA

  • [UDK No. 14623 : March 07, 2012] SCAD SERVICES PTE. LTD. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER 14TH DIVISION, JORGE YANSON, EDDIE GOLDE, EDGAR NOCHE, ET AL.

  • [March 06, 2012] RE: HOLY WEEK RECESS

  • [G.R. No. 177292 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. JESSIE GARBIDA Y FOSTER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. 12-2-11-MCTC : March 07, 2012] UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSION OF TRAVEL ABROAD BY MIGUELITA D. VILLA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), KIBAWE, BUKIDNON

  • [G.R. No. 176126 : March 07, 2012] OSMUND DECANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 192259 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ROSALINDA SUMAYA Y MABALON, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187792 : March 07, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONRADA AREVALO

  • [G.R.No. 182210 : March 07, 2012] PAZ BERNARDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 200227 : March 12, 2012] LORENZO HIDALGO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 200353 : March 12, 2012] SOUTHERN CARRIER CO., INC. v. CARLITO MA�ACAP

  • [G.R. No. 184315 : March 12, 2012] ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO v. THE MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2303 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3416-RTJ) : March 12, 2012] MARIO S. ROMERO, COMPLAINANT VS. MANUEL C. LUNA, JR. EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 39, CALAPAN CITY, ORIENTAL MINDORO,

  • [A.M. No. 11-1-09-RTC : March 13, 2012] RE: REQUEST FOR THE CREATION OF ADDITIONAL DRUGS COURTS IN THE RTC, DUMAGUETE CITY

  • [G.R. No. 181779 : March 13, 2012] ANDREW L. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND TEODORO DELA TORRE VILLAGRACIA, SR.

  • [G.R. No. 192070 : March 13, 2012] EDDIE "AMONG ED" T. PANLILIO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LILIA G. PINEDA.

  • [G.R. No. 176323 : March 14, 2012] LENY B. DIAZ AND SPOUSES ANTONIO B. ESCALONA AND LEONORA ESCALONA VS. CHERRIE PINEZA AND KOJI HAMAMURA

  • [G.R. No. 189875 : March 14, 2012] NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. TRANS DIGITAL EXCEL, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 199914 : March 14, 2012] MEL MIKE GAMIN Y TARI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 181957 : March 14, 2012] RENATO P. MENDOZA, NEGOTIATING UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF LADY LOU GENERAL MERCHANDISE V. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 198315 : March 19, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RANNIE GULAPA Y ORDINARIO

  • [A.M. No. 14219-Ret. : March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE ULPIANO I. CAMPOS, RTC, BRANCH 22, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE CONRADO B. VENUS, RTC, BRANCH 22, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE ALBERTO V. BENESA, RTC, BRANCH 58, BUCAY, ABRA; JUDGE NORMELITO J. BALLOCANAG, RTC, BRANCH 41, PINAMALAYAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO, JUDGE FILOMENO A. VERGARA, RTC, BRANCH 2, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY; JUDGE EUFEMIO R. JOLINA, MTCC, SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION; JUDGE JOSE V. HABALO, MTCC, LUCENA CITY; JUDGE NORBERTO GREGORIO E. TIZON, JR., MTC, SAN ISIDRO, NORTHERN SAMAR; JUDGE GREGORIO S. VIOS, MTC, KAPATAGAN, LANAO DEL NORTE; AND JUDGE PACIANO B. GALLEPOSO, MCTC, SINDANGAN, ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE

  • [A.M. No. 14218-Ret., March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, RTC, BRANCH 142, MAKATI CITY AND JUDGE ANTONIO C. BAGAG�AN, MTC, GUINOBATAN, ALBAY

  • [G.R. Nos. 153304-05 : March 20, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171850 : March 21, 2012] EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO

  • [A.M. No. 14210-Ret. : March 13, 2012] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS OF MRS. VIRGINIA P. ELBINIAS, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE HON. JESUS M. ELBINIAS, FORMER PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • [G.R. No. 160669 : March 14, 2012] SPOUSES WILFREDO SANTOS AND LUZVIMINDA SANTOS v. SPOUSES ALFREDO NEPOMUCENO AND ESTER DELA PAZ NEPOMUCENO, AND HON. MAURICIO M. RIVERA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS RTC JUDGE, 4TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 73, ANTIPOLO CITY.

  • [G.R. No. 176063 : March 14, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO MIA Y IFSOR

  • [G.R. No. 181969 : March 19, 2012] ROMAGO, INC. v. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 191684 : March 20, 2012] ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • [G.R. No. 199196 : March 20, 2012] NELLY RAMOS v. ANACLETO BALDO

  • [A.M. No. 14216-Ret. : March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE RENE R. VICTORIANO, RTC, BRANCH 124, CALOOCAN CITY; JUDGE ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN, RTC, BRANCH 12, SANCHEZ MIRA, CAGAYAN; JUDGE IRENEO B. ESCANDOR, RTC, BRANCH 55, IROSIN, SORSOGON; JUDGE CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO, RTC, BRANCH 9, CEBU CITY; JUDGE EPIFANIO C. LLANOS, RTC, BRANCH 26, ARGAO, CEBU; JUDGE HILARIO I. MAPAYO, RTC, BRANCH 19, DIGOS CITY; JUDGE COROCOY D. MOSON, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, COTABATO CITY; JUDGE MARIANO P. FUENTEBELLA, MTCC, IRIGA CITY; JUDGE JAIME F. VILORIA, MCTC, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE ELPIDIO N. QUIÑON, MCTC, POTOTAN-MINA, ILOILO; AND JUDGE CIRIACO C. ARIÑO, MCTC, SAN FRANCISCO, AGUSAN DEL SUR

  • [G.R. No. 193387 : March 21, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS FLORO TECZON, NUMERIANO TABUYAN (DECEASED), AND JOSE ENOVESO, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174682 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. ELMER A. BUCA AND WILLIAM B. CAINCAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175052 : March 21, 2012] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM REPRESENTED BY OIC SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN v. MANUEL DEL ROSARIO.

  • [G.R. No. 184649 : March 21, 2012] CESAR P. FIANZA, PETITIONER VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 199430 : March 21, 2012] MEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 186464 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PANNER "TOTS" IDAL Y SAMPORNA A.K.A. PANOTOLAN DAUNTE Y SAMPORNA

  • [G.R. No. 171850 : March 21, 2012] EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO

  • [G.R. No. 176579 : April 10, 2012] WILSON P. GAMBOA, PETITIONER, VS. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.