G.R. No. L-19571 December 31, 1965
FRANCISCA PUZON, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MARCELINO GAERLAN, EMMA VILLANUEVA and ROSALINA GUNDRAN, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Francisca Puzon and Marcelino Gaerlan were married on May 15, 1944. Among the properties they acquired during their marriage was a two-story building in Baguio City. Due to estranged relations, they separated in 1958. On March 1, 1950, Gaerlan executed a lease contract with Emma Villanueva and Rosalina Gundran for the basement of the building, stipulating that the lessees would pay the monthly rental to Gaerlan. Because of this stipulation, Puzon filed Civil Case No. 950 in the Court of First Instance of Baguio against the lessees and her husband to determine the rights and duties of the spouses under the contract concerning the receipt of payment. Gaerlan’s motion to dismiss was denied, and he filed his answer, while the lessees were declared in default. When the case was called for trial on July 12, 1960, a pre-trial was held, during which the spouses entered into a compromise agreement. The terms of this agreement were embodied in the court’s final order dated September 15, 1960. The order provided that upon Puzon’s payment of P35,000 to Gaerlan within 45 days, Gaerlan would waive all rights to specified conjugal properties (a Baguio house and land, a house and land in San Lorenzo Village, Makati, and the “Paquitas” department store in Baguio) and any accounting for rentals or profits received by Puzon, in her favor. The waiver was without prejudice to the rights of creditors of the conjugal partnership and of the spouses as of the date of the order. Puzon appealed, claiming the order dissolved the conjugal partnership.

ISSUE

Whether the final order of the lower court, which embodied the compromise agreement between the spouses, dissolved the conjugal partnership and is contrary to law.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the final order appealed from, which embodied the compromise agreement reached by the parties during pre-trial, is not subject to appeal. Furthermore, a perusal of the order shows that it did not contain any pronouncement or declaration dissolving the conjugal partnership between Puzon and Gaerlan. It simply provided that, upon payment of P35,000 by Puzon, Gaerlan waived his rights to the specifically enumerated conjugal properties and any accounting for their fruits in favor of Puzon. Properties other than those listed, and any properties yet to be acquired by either spouse, were not included in the agreement. Therefore, the appeal was without merit.