GR 189602; (May, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 189602; May 6, 2010
HEIRS OF ALFREDO ZABALA, represented by MENEGILDA ZABALA, et al., Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, VICENTE T. MANUEL AND/OR HEIRS OF VICENTE T. MANUEL, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Vicente T. Manuel filed an ejectment complaint with damages against Alfredo Zabala before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Balanga, Bataan. Manuel alleged that Zabala unlawfully entered his fishpond, dumped soil, and destroyed his aquaculture stock. Zabala moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to undergo prior barangay conciliation as required by the Local Government Code. The MTCC granted the motion and dismissed the case. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTCC, ruling that Zabala’s failure to file an answer entitled Manuel to a judgment on the pleadings under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. The RTC ordered Zabala to vacate the property and pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s reversal but deleted the monetary awards. Zabala’s heirs then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Compromise Agreement submitted by the parties should be approved by the Supreme Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court approved the Compromise Agreement. The legal logic is anchored on Article 2028 of the Civil Code, which defines a compromise as a contract where parties, through reciprocal concessions, avoid or terminate litigation. The Court emphasized that compromise agreements, as a form of amicable settlement, are not only permitted but encouraged in civil cases to promote expediency and finality. The authority of the parties to enter into such agreements is broad, limited only by the requirement that the terms must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. The Court examined the submitted agreement, wherein the respondents, for a consideration of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱200,000.00), acknowledged the petitioners’ ownership, abandoned the favorable decisions of the lower courts, and waived all rights to the subject property, assuring the petitioners’ peaceful possession. Finding that the agreement was voluntarily executed and contained no stipulations violating legal norms or public policy, the Court granted judicial approval. Consequently, the Court rendered judgment in accordance with the compromise, thereby terminating the case.