GR L 50419; (October, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-50419 October 27, 1983
SPOUSES FRANCISCO K. REDOR and ANGELINA C. REDOR, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and ERLINDA QUINTO, ROBERTO QUINTO, CARMENCITA QUINTO, and FERNANDO QUINTO, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, Spouses Francisco and Angelina Redor, are the registered owners of a parcel of land in Quezon City covered by TCT No. 145898. The private respondents, the Quinto siblings, had initiated legal actions against the Redors, including an adverse claim in 1975 and a complaint for reconveyance in 1978, contesting the ownership of the same property. These actions spawned a series of appeals and special civil actions that reached the Court of Appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court.
To terminate the protracted litigation, the parties, through the intervention of a prospective buyer, negotiated an amicable settlement. They executed a Compromise Agreement on September 27, 1983, and jointly filed a motion for its approval with the Supreme Court. The agreement stipulated that the Redors would pay the Quintos the total sum of P150,000.00. An initial payment of P75,000.00 would be made upon the filing of motions for approval in both courts, after which the Quintos would vacate the property within twenty days. The final P75,000.00 balance would be paid upon receipt of court judgments approving the settlement, whereupon the Quintos would renounce all claims to the land.
ISSUE
Whether the Compromise Agreement executed by the parties is valid and should be approved by the Court.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court approved the Compromise Agreement and rendered judgment based on its terms. The legal logic is grounded in the principle that compromise is a favored means of settling disputes to avoid protracted litigation. Under Article 2028 of the Civil Code, a compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. For a compromise agreement to be judicially sanctioned, it must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
The Court meticulously examined the submitted agreement. It found that the terms were the product of mutual concessions—the Redors agreed to pay a substantial sum to the Quintos, and the Quintos, in turn, agreed to relinquish all their claims and vacate the property, thereby recognizing the Redors as the rightful owners. The agreement was voluntarily executed by all parties of legal age, assisted by their respective counsels, and duly notarized. The Court found no stipulation within the contract that violated any legal norm or public interest. Consequently, the agreement was deemed valid and binding. The approval converts the private contract into a judgment of the Court, which is immediately executory and has the force of res judicata, finally putting the controversy to rest. The parties were strictly enjoined to comply with its terms.