GR 38572; (December, 1933) (Digest)
G.R. No. 38572 , December 6, 1933
EUSEBIO RIVERO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MARIANO RIVERO, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Eusebio Rivero filed an action for partition of property against his brother Mariano. In 1928, they entered into a compromise agreement, which was approved by the court in a decision dated October 17, 1928. Under the agreement, Eusebio would receive a specific parcel of land (parcel “g”) and renounce all rights to the other properties. More than three years later, on November 15, 1931, Eusebio filed a new action to repudiate the compromise and set aside the judgment, alleging his attorney entered into the compromise without his special authority. The trial court absolved the defendant, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the compromise agreement and the judgment based on it can be set aside on the ground that Eusebio’s attorney lacked special authority to compromise the litigation.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that the 1928 judgment, entered with the parties’ consent, had the force of a final judgment, and the plea of res adjudicata would apply. Even assuming the attorney initially lacked special authority to compromise, Eusebio’s conduct constituted ratification. By waiting over three years—far beyond the six-month period for seeking equitable relief under the Code of Civil Procedure—before challenging the agreement, Eusebio acquiesced to the compromise. His unexplained delay and failure to promptly repudiate his attorney’s action barred him from contesting its validity. The Court also noted that on the merits, Eusebio would face great difficulty overcoming the documentary evidence presented by Mariano.
AI Generated by Armztrong.