G.R. No. 102360 March 20, 1996
ROSITA DOMINGO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE, respondents.
KAPUNAN, J.:
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.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
* CFI - Rizal: in favor of RP.
* SC: affirmed.
ROSITA DOMINGO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE, respondents.
KAPUNAN, J.:
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.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
* CFI - Rizal: in favor of RP.
* SC: affirmed.
PHHC
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).
ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE (AIA)
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, which was approved.
ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF AGREEMENT
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. Domingo did not appeal this dismissal but instead filed a motion for reconsideration of the issuance of writ of execution by the trial court.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
*Trial Court: Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution of the Partial Decision granted ordering PHHC to sell to AIA.
*Trial court (MR of Domingo): denied.
*CA: dismissed.
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.
ISSUE:
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).
ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE (AIA)
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, which was approved.
ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF AGREEMENT
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. Domingo did not appeal this dismissal but instead filed a motion for reconsideration of the issuance of writ of execution by the trial court.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
*Trial Court: Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution of the Partial Decision granted ordering PHHC to sell to AIA.
*Trial court (MR of Domingo): denied.
*CA: dismissed.
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.
ISSUE:
WON the petition to declare as invalid the compromise agreement is with merit
HELD:
NO. The petitioner also did not follow the correct procedure in appealing:
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.
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. 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.
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.
HELD:
NO. The petitioner also did not follow the correct procedure in appealing:
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.
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. 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.
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.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment