G.R. No. 194560, June 11, 2014
NESTOR T. GADRINAB, Petitioner, vs. NORA T. SALAMANCA, ANTONIO TALAO AND ELENA LOPEZ, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents, along with Adoracion Gadrinab and Arsenia Talao, are siblings and heirs of the late Spouses Nicolas and Aurelia Talao, who died intestate leaving a parcel of land in Sta. Ana, Manila. The heirs divided the property via an extrajudicial settlement, with Arsenia later waiving her share. Respondent Nora T. Salamanca filed a complaint for partition against her siblings Antonio Talao, Elena Lopez (represented by her husband Jose Lopez), and Adoracion Gadrinab (represented by her heirs, petitioner Nestor Gadrinab and Francisco Gadrinab) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The parties, all claiming shares in the property and in accumulated rentals totaling Php 528,623.00, entered into a compromise agreement during mediation. The agreement stipulated that: (1) the subject property would be sold and the proceeds divided equally among the four parties; (2) the property would be appraised by an independent appraiser, Cuervo Appraiser, with Antonio Talao to advance the payment of Francisco Gadrinab’s share after appraisal; (3) the accrued and future rentals would be divided among the parties; (4) Nestor Gadrinab would vacate the premises within 45 days after payment of the appraised value to Francisco Gadrinab; and (5) all claims and counterclaims would be waived. The RTC approved the compromise agreement on April 10, 2003, and it became final and executory.
Subsequently, Nestor Gadrinab filed a motion for execution to demand his share of the rentals. During hearings, it was agreed rentals would be divided into three shares since Nestor occupied one duplex unit, with Antonio Talao shouldering Nestor’s one-fourth share. The property was appraised, but Antonio Talao, unsatisfied, moved for a reappraisal, which was denied. Nestor Gadrinab refused to vacate his unit, hindering the sale. Due to her co-heirs’ non-cooperation, respondent Salamanca moved for physical partition of the property instead of sale. The RTC granted the motion. Nestor and Francisco Gadrinab appealed, arguing the judgment on compromise was final and had res judicata effect. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, applying an exception to the immutability of judgments, ruling that the parties’ endless disagreements rendered execution unjust and inequitable, and that physical partition was merely another enforcement method. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s decision allowing the physical partition of the property despite the finality of a previous judgment on a compromise agreement involving the division of the same property.

RULING

Yes, the petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and set aside the RTC order granting physical partition. A judgment based on a compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits, has the effect of res judicata, and is immediately final and executory unless set aside due to vitiated consent. The doctrine of immutability of judgments bars modification of final decisions. The elements of res judicata are present: a previous final judgment by a court with jurisdiction, on the merits, between identical parties on the same subject matter and cause of action. Respondent Salamanca’s motion for physical partition constituted a relitigation of the same cause of action already settled by the compromise agreement, which is barred as res judicata. The alleged “endless disagreements” and non-compliance by some parties do not constitute a supervening event that would warrant an exception to immutability, as they were mere difficulties in execution, not changes rendering execution unjust. The proper remedy for non-compliance is an execution of the compromise judgment, not a new action for partition. The Court of Appeals’ affirmation was a reversible error.