Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > October 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 182614 : October 03, 2011] SPOUSES MARCIANO CALIBARA AND CARMELITA CALIBARA V. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FORMER SEVENTH DIVISION, AND SPOUSES REYNALDO S. DE BELEN AND NORMA DE BELEN :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 October 2011, which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 182614 (Spouses Marciano Calibara and Carmelita Calibara v. The Honorable Court of Appeals former Seventh Division, and Spouses Reynaldo S. De Belen and Norma De Belen). - This resolves the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, praying that the Decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals Special Former Seventh Division dated December 14, 2007 and the Resolution^[2]  dated April 16, 2008 denying petitioners� motion for reconsideration, be annulled and set aside.

Private respondents filed a Complaint for accion publiciana with the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan (RTC) against herein petitioners. A motion to dismiss the complaint was filed by petitioners on the grounds of lack of a proper certification against forum shopping and lack of jurisdiction. The RTC issued an Order^[3]  dated August 14, 2006 denying said motion to dismiss, and petitioners' motion for reconsideration thereof was likewise denied per Resolution^[4] dated October 17, 2006.

Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), and on December 14, 2007, the assailed Decision denying the petition was promulgated. The motion for reconsideration of said Decision was also denied.

Hence, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before this Court.

However, before this Court could resolve the petition, petitioners and private respondents, assisted by their respective counsels, filed a Motion to Render Decision Based on Compromise Agreement^[5]  dated August 5, 201, which reads as follows: 

The parties, assisted by their respective counsels, respectfully submit the following, 

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

1. Petitioners and private respondents agree to the following: 

1.1 Petitioners will pay private respondents the amount of TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P2,500,000.00) upon signing of the instant agreement, by way of payment of the arrears in rentals for the subject property leased by the former from the latter; 

2. In consideration of the foregoing, petitioners agree to the dismissal of the above-entitled petition just as respondents agree to the dismissal of the case of origin, entitled Sps. Reynaldo de Belen and Norma de Belen, plaintiffs, versus, Sps. Marciano Calibara and Carmelita Calibara, now pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 10, Malolos City, Bulacan, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-M-2006. 

3. Respondents agree to lease to petitioner the same property, for a period of two (2) years, starting July 31, 2011  renewable every two (2) years, thereafter, for THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) per month, and the terms thereof to be contained in a separate contract of lease.

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

(Signed)   MARCIANO CALIBARA Petitioner		(Signed)   REYNALDO S. DE BELEN   Respondent
(Signed)   CARMELITA CALIBARA Petitioner		(Signed)   NORMA DE BELEN Respondent
	Assisted by:		Assisted by:
(Signed)   ATTY. MARK C. ARCILLA		(Signed) ATTY. NORMAN ROXAS

�

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorble Court that a decision be rendered in the above-entitled case based on the instant compromise agreement.

In Alexander Gaisano v. Benjamin Akol,^[6]  the Court defined a compromise agreement as a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation, or put an end to one already commenced. Its validity depends on its fulfillment of the requisites and principles of contracts dictated by law; its terms and conditions being not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order.

A close reading of the afore-quoted agreement shows the same to be sanctioned under Article 2028 of the Civil Code. Its terms and conditions are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order; hence, the Court gives its approval thereto.

WHEREFORE, the Compromise Agreement is hereby APPROVED and judgment is hereby rendered in accordance therewith. The parties are enjoined to comply strictly and in good faith with the terms, conditions and stipulations contained therein. By virtue of such approval, this case is now deemed TERMINATED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

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

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, concurring; rollo, pp. 19-27.

^[2] Id. at 29-30. 

^[3] Id. at 70-72. 

^[4] Id. at 79-80. 

^[5] Id. at 166-167. 

^[6] G.R. No. 193840, June 15, 2011.