G.R. No. L-46942 February 6, 1979
ROMULA MABALE, FILOMENO TAMALA, FE MANGOMPIT TAMALA, GENARA MANGOMPIT ETOC and NESTOR MANGOMPIT, petitioners, vs. HON. SIMPLICIO APALISOK, Presiding Judge, CFI, BRANCH I, Dipolog City and TAN TIAN TIONG, respondents.

FACTS

Romula Mabale was the registered owner of Lot No. 1592. She sold this lot under a pacto de retro to Lagrimas Lim, wife of respondent Tan Tian Tiong, but failed to redeem it. The spouses Tan Tian Tiong and Lagrimas Lim subsequently filed a suit for consolidation of ownership. Separately, Tan Tian Tiong sued Mabale for recovery of a sum of money (Civil Case No. 2711) arising from undelivered copra purchases. To settle all pending cases, the parties entered into a compromise agreement dated April 22, 1976, approved by the Court of First Instance.
The compromise stipulated that Mabale would pay P46,000 by July 22, 1976. If she failed, Lot No. 1592 would be ceded to the Tiong spouses, who would assume her P20,000 loan with the Development Bank of the Philippines. The agreement granted Mabale or her children a five-year right to repurchase the lot by reimbursing the P46,000 and the bank payments. Mabale did not pay the P46,000. Consequently, the trial court issued an order on July 6, 1977, directing Mabale and her children and son-in-law (the petitioners) to vacate Lot No. 1592 and not to disturb Tan Tian Tiong’s enjoyment of it. Petitioners appealed, arguing the order was a writ of possession issued without a separate action and that their right to possess the lot, pending their right to repurchase, was violated.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court, in ordering the petitioners to vacate Lot No. 1592, acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, considering the terms of the compromise agreement which granted them a right to repurchase.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order, with modification. The legal logic is that the compromise agreement, having been judicially approved, had the force of res judicata and was immediately executory. Mabale’s failure to pay the P46,000 by the stipulated date triggered the conditional obligation: ownership was consolidated in favor of the Tiong spouses. The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim that a separate action for ejectment was necessary to deprive them of possession. Citing Perez vs. Evite, the Court ruled that where an adjudication of ownership is made in favor of a party, and the losing party has no independent right to possess the property (such as that of a tenant or lessee), the delivery of possession is included in the adjudication. The petitioners’ possession was derivative solely from Mabale’s former ownership, which had been extinguished. Their contingent right to repurchase within five years did not constitute a present, independent possessory right enforceable against the now-adjudged owner, Tan Tian Tiong. The Court clarified that requiring the respondents to file a new action for possession would be multiplicious and defeat the ends of justice. The order to vacate was thus a proper consequence of the final judgment based on the compromise. However, the Court modified the period for compliance, granting petitioners sixty days from the finality of judgment to deliver possession.