This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-11-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Thus, a compromise agreement, once approved, has the effect of res judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent, forgery, fraud, misrepresentation, and coercion.[34] A judgment upon compromise is therefore not appealable, immediately executory, and can be enforced by a writ of execution.[35] However, this broad precept enunciated under Article 2037[36] of the Civil Code has been qualified by Article 2041 of the same Code which recognizes the right of an aggrieved party to either (1) enforce the compromise by a writ of execution, or (2) regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand, upon the other party's failure or refusal to abide by the compromise. In a plethora of cases,[37] the Court has recognized the option of rescinding a compromise agreement due to non-compliance with its terms. We explained in Chavez v. Court of Appeals:[38] | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Rey Castigador Catedrilla v. Mario and Margie Lauron,[29] we explained that while all co-owners are real parties in interest in suits to recover properties, anyone of them may bring an action for the recovery of co-owned properties. Only the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of the co-owned property becomes an indispensable party thereto; the other co-owners are neither indispensable nor necessary parties. | |||||