G.R. No. L-62251 July 29, 1985
IRENE TAC-AN-DANO, FELIPE G. TAC-AN, DIOSDADO G. TAC-AN and SOCORRO TAC-AN GENOBATEN, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ALFONSO G. TAC-AN, respondents.

FACTS

The parties are siblings and heirs of the deceased spouses Pio Tac-an and Luisa Guzman. Upon Luisa’s death in 1971, intestate proceedings for her estate were initiated. Private respondent Alfonso Tac-an opposed the petition, claiming a one-half share in 6,159 coconut trees on a family property in San Isidro, Misamis Occidental, pursuant to an alleged oral agreement with his late mother. The intestate court ordered partition based on a Compromise Agreement executed by all heirs on January 29, 1973. Alfonso, however, filed a separate civil case in 1975 for recovery of ownership of the coconut trees and damages, reiterating his claim to one-half of the produce based on the alleged agreement with his mother.
The trial court dismissed Alfonso’s complaint, ruling his claim was barred by the prior judgment in the intestate proceedings and the Compromise Agreement. It also granted the petitioners’ counterclaim, ordering Alfonso to pay monetary awards and deliver cattle. The Court of Appeals modified this decision, holding that Alfonso was entitled to one-half of the produce of the coconut trees, while reducing other awards. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Appellate Court erred in not applying the principle of res judicata.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that Alfonso Tac-an’s claim for a share in the coconut trees is barred by res judicata due to the final Compromise Agreement and judgment in the prior intestate proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and set aside the Court of Appeals’ award to Alfonso. The Court held that the principle of res judicata applies. The Compromise Agreement, which was judicially approved and resulted in a final judgment of partition in Special Proceedings No. 615, constitutes a final adjudication on the merits. A compromise agreement has the force of law between the parties and is conclusive upon them. Alfonso’s subsequent civil action sought to re-litigate the very issue of his share in the estate’s assets, which had already been settled by the compromise. By participating in the intestate proceedings and entering into the agreement without expressly reserving his right to pursue the separate claim, Alfonso is bound by its terms. The Court emphasized that parties cannot be allowed to renege on a compromise solemnly entered into and approved by the court. Consequently, Alfonso’s claim for one-half of the coconut produce was barred. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint and its orders for him to fulfill his obligations under the compromise, including delivering the petitioners’ share of the produce from 1971 and the stipulated heads of cattle, while affirming the elimination of moral damages and attorney’s fees.