This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-02-13 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that a compromise agreement cannot bind persons who are not parties to it.[3] This rule is based on Article 1311(1) of the Civil Code which provides that "contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs x x x." The sound reason for the exclusion of non-parties to an agreement is the absence of a vinculum or juridical tie which is the efficient cause for the establishment of an obligation. In the Compromise Agreement that was presented to the trial court, there is no question that only the spouses Uy and the Bank were parties. Limpo did not participate in its execution and there was no reference to him in any of its provisions. He cannot be bound by the Compromise Agreement. | |||||
|
2005-12-09 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that a contract cannot be binding upon and cannot be enforced against one who is not a party to it, even if he is aware of such contract and has acted with knowledge thereof.[15] A person who is not a party to a compromise agreement cannot be affected by it.[16] This is already well-settled. Thus, in Young v. Court of Appeals[17] we stressed:The main issue in this case is whether or not petitioner can enforce a compromise agreement to which she was not a party. | |||||