G.R. No. L-21156 and L-21187 July 30, 1966
LOURDES R. OSMEÑA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, HON. VALERIANO A. DEL VALLE, LEONARDO QUIMA and FILOMENO OLDOG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Lourdes R. Osmeña, owner of Hacienda Esperanza in Bago, Negros Occidental, filed separate complaints for ejectment in the Court of Agrarian Relations against her leasehold tenants, Leonardo Quima (Field No. 16, 5 hectares) and Filomeno Oldog (Field No. 110, 2.4 hectares), for their failure to pay agreed yearly palay rentals for the past three crop years (1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61). The tenants filed answers with counterclaims for damages, alleging the petitioner unlawfully prevented them from planting for the 1960-61 crop year. The parties, however, reached an amicable settlement on December 14, 1961, which was submitted to the court for approval. The settlement terms included: (1) the tenants acknowledged their failure to pay rentals for 1958-59 and 1959-60 but denied liability for 1960-61; (2) the petitioner waived collection for 1960-61; (3) the tenants agreed to pay their arrears and future rentals for crop years 1961-62, 1962-63, and 1963-64 in specified installments “on or before the harvest” of each respective crop year; and (4) upon failure to fully pay any installment, the petitioner would be immediately entitled to ask for execution of the judgment upon motion and hearing. The Court of Agrarian Relations approved the settlement and rendered decisions ordering compliance on March 7, 1962. On September 28, 1962, the petitioner filed motions for execution, alleging the tenants failed to pay the full stipulated rentals for crop year 1961-62 (Quima paid only 36 cavans and 11 gantas, short by 14 cavans and 6 gantas; Oldog paid only 17 cavans, short by 10 cavans and 3 gantas) and had subleased the landholdings without consent, praying for ejectment. The Court of Agrarian Relations denied the motions on November 14, 1962, ruling they were premature since the rentals covered crop years up to 1963-64, which had not yet been harvested, and that the subleasing allegation was a new matter not proper for a motion for execution. The court denied motions for reconsideration on March 16, 1963. The petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking only an order for execution to collect the unpaid balance for the 1961-62 rentals, contending her motions were timely.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s motions for execution to collect the unpaid balance of rentals for crop year 1961-62, pursuant to the amicable settlement approved by the Court of Agrarian Relations, were prematurely filed.

RULING

No, the motions for execution were not premature. The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the Court of Agrarian Relations and ordered the execution of the decisions with respect to the unpaid rentals for crop year 1961-62. The plain terms of the amicable settlement specified that rentals for crop years 1961-62, 1962-63, and 1963-64 were payable “on or before the harvest” of each respective crop year and that upon the tenant’s failure to fully pay any installment, the landowner “shall immediately be entitled to ask for the execution of the judgment.” These provisions clearly allowed the petitioner to seek execution for the 1961-62 rentals without waiting for the subsequent crop years to end. The Court rejected the tenants’ argument that a violation of the settlement terms constituted a new cause of action requiring a separate suit, holding that a judgment based on a compromise agreement is part of the judgment itself and may be enforced by a writ of execution, as established in Serrano v. Miave. Since non-payment of the 1961-62 balance was undisputed, execution was in order.