GR L 50526; (December, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-50526 December 4, 1991
CASIMIRO V. ARKONCEL, JR., as Administrator of the ESTATE OF CASIMIRO F. ARKONCEL, petitioner, vs. HON. ALFREDO J. LAGAMON, Presiding Judge of the CFI of Davao City, Branch I and INVESTORS’ FINANCE CORPORATION (FNCB), respondents.
FACTS
The late Casimiro F. Arkoncel died intestate. In the settlement of his estate, respondent Investors’ Finance Corporation (FNCB) filed a money claim. Petitioner Casimiro V. Arkoncel, Jr., the court-appointed judicial administrator, and FNCB entered into a Compromise Agreement on January 9, 1978, wherein the administrator admitted the claim. The intestate court approved this agreement in an Order dated May 17, 1978, directing the administrator to pay the agreed amounts from the estate funds and/or properties within thirty days from receipt.
Petitioner administrator received the order on September 17, 1978, but failed to pay the claim after the thirty-day period. Consequently, FNCB filed a motion for execution. The respondent judge granted the motion and issued a writ of execution in an Order dated December 13, 1978. The administrator’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari to annul the orders granting execution.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for execution of the compromise judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the respondent judge acted correctly and ministerially. A judgment based on a duly approved compromise agreement is immediately final and executory. Such a compromise is not merely a contract but becomes part of the judgment itself and is enforceable by a writ of execution. The remedy against a final compromise judgment is not an appeal but a motion to set it aside on grounds of fraud, mistake, or duress, which was not availed of here.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that properties under custodia legis cannot be subject to execution. The court’s approval order explicitly directed payment from “estate funds and/or properties,” and the administrator’s non-compliance justified the issuance of the writ. The aggrieved party’s proper recourse for violation of a compromise is precisely to move for its execution. Therefore, the respondent judge committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ to enforce the final and executory compromise judgment.