This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-02-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| A judgment rendered on the basis of a compromise agreement between the parties in a civil case is final, unappealable, and immediately executory.[20] | |||||
|
2014-09-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, in Domingo Realty, Inc. v. CA,[20]we emphasized the need for prospective parties to a contract involving titled lands to exercise the diligence of a reasonably prudent person in ensuring the legality of the title, and the accuracy of the metes and bounds of the lot embraced therein,by undertaking precautionary measures, such as: Verifying the origin, history, authenticity, and validity of the title with the Office of the Register of Deeds and the Land Registration Authority; | |||||
|
2014-06-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| "[They cannot] relieve parties from [their] obligations . . . simply because [the agreements are] . . . unwise."[68] Further, "[t]he mere fact that the Compromise Agreement favors one party does not render it invalid."[69] Courts do not have power to "alter contracts in order to save [one party] from [the effects of] adverse stipulations. . . ."[70] | |||||
|
2009-09-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The stipulation states categorically that the 30 investment accounts of respondent Financiera with SPPI had already matured. However, the cash value of the said investment accounts were never given because SPPI, not being a party to the Compromise Agreement, could not be compelled to pay respondent Financiera's unpaid obligation to petitioner Valdez. The only legal effect of the non-inclusion of a party in a compromise agreement is that said party cannot be bound by the terms of the agreement.[45] Thus, the valuable consideration referred to by respondent Financiera in the Compromise Agreement has yet to be fulfilled. The very essence of the stipulation, as gleaned from the literal, as well as the implied, meaning of the words contained therein is the eventual payment of petitioner Valdez's claim. As ruled[46] by this Court, in a compromise agreement, the literal meaning of its stipulations must control.[47] It "must be strictly interpreted and x x x understood as including only matters specifically determined therein or which, by necessary inference from its wording, must be deemed included."[48] Therefore, the non-maturity of the 30 investment accounts of respondent Financiera with SPPI makes the Compromise Agreement unenforceable. In Abinujar v. Court of Appeals,[49] as cited in Alonzo, et al. v. Jaime and Perlita San Juan,[50] this Court even went further and declared that the non-fulfillment of the terms and conditions of a compromise agreement approved by the court justifies execution thereof, and the issuance of a writ for the said purpose is the court's ministerial duty enforceable by mandamus. In this particular case, since the Compromise Agreement's enforceability depends on the maturity of the subject SPPI shares, the RTC could not compel SPPI to deliver the cash value of the said investment accounts, simply because the latter was not a party to the Compromise Agreement. Hence, the RTC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction when it granted petitioner Valdez's motion for execution in its Decision dated May 22, 2000. | |||||