G.R. No. 73047 July 14, 1994
THE HEIRS OF GABRIEL CAPILI, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. GUALBERTO J. DE LA LANA, PRESIDING JUDGE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BULACAN, BRANCH XVI, MR. PERLITO G. DIMAGIBA, THE HEIRS OF LUIS SALAMAT AND PASCUALA SALAMAT, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents (Heirs of Luis Salamat and Pascuala Salamat) filed a complaint for “Confirmation of Ownership (and) Recovery of Possession with Damages” against petitioners’ predecessor, Gabriel Capili, concerning a 327-square meter parcel of land in Paombong, Bulacan. They alleged co-ownership and that Capili’s occupation since 1961 was merely through tolerance. Capili’s Miscellaneous Sales Application over the lot was denied by the Bureau of Lands, a decision affirmed by the Ministry of Natural Resources on October 29, 1982. In the civil case, Capili was declared in default, and a decision was rendered in favor of private respondents, confirming their ownership, ordering Capili to vacate, and awarding damages. Capili’s petition for relief from judgment was denied by the trial court, and the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) denied his petition and dismissed the case. Capili (later substituted by his heirs) filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the case, the Ministry of Natural Resources, in an order dated April 10, 1986, modified its earlier decision, giving Capili priority over the western half of the lot where his house stood and giving the eastern half to the Salamats. The parties subsequently submitted a Compromise Agreement to the Supreme Court dated April 19, 1994, wherein the Salamats agreed to assign their rights over the eastern half to the Capili heirs for P35,000.00, and the parties agreed to dismiss all related litigations and for petitioners to apply for title over the whole lot.

ISSUE

The petition initially raised issues regarding whether the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for relief from judgment and whether such denial could be reviewed by certiorari. However, the ultimate issue resolved by the Supreme Court was the approval of the Compromise Agreement submitted by the parties to settle the dispute.

RULING

The Supreme Court APPROVED the Compromise Agreement. Finding the agreement to be in order, not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, and in consonance with the policy of encouraging amicable settlement of disputes, the Court sanctioned the agreement. The parties were enjoined to faithfully comply with its terms and conditions. The resolution was declared immediately executory.