SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 208956, October 17, 2018
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF ELIGIO CRUZ, REPRESENTED BY CRISANTA OLIQUINO, AND HEIRS OF ELIGIO CRUZ, REPRESENTED BY MAXIMINO AGALABIA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
The Disputed Portion was subdivided, and thereafter registered in the name of the Republic. However, no payment of just compensation was made.10
Lot Area in square meters Registered Owner Lot 643-A-2 1,822 Virginia B. Uichanco Lot 643-A-3 1,047 Julita B. Uichanco-Denoga Lot 643-B 1,888 Eligio Cruz9
WHEREFORE, the several motions for reconsideration and motion to dismiss are hereby DENIED.The Republic filed several motions26 to avert execution.
The motion for execution is hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, let a writ of execution issue for the implementation of the aforesaid judgment based on Compromise Agreement dated April18, 2011.
SO ORDERED.25 (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motions filed by [the Republic] and the [De Leon group] are hereby DENIED, for lack of merit.27CA Proceedings
x x x Once stamped with judicial imprimatur, [a compromise agreement] becomes more than a mere contract binding upon the parties; having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of the controversy, it has the force and effect of any other judgment. It has the effect and authority of res judicata, although no execution may issue until it would have received the corresponding approval of the court where the litigation pends and its compliance with the terms of the agreement is thereupon decreed. x x x43 (Emphasis supplied)Before approving a compromise, courts are thus bound to strictly scrutinize the same to ensure that the compromise and its execution are compliant with the law and consistent with procedural rules.44
The parties, particularly, [the Agalabia group], [the Oliquino group], x x x entered into a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT dated March 24, 2011 hereunder quoted to read as follows:Clearly, the immediate execution of the Partial Judgment approving the Compromise Agreement facilitates the premature distribution of the Republic's remaining balance without affording the De Leon group and Atty. Borja of the opportunity to establish their entitlement, if any, to compensation beyond the amounts unilaterally set by the Oliquino and Agalabia groups. This defeats the very purpose for which the Republic's Interpleader had been filed, as it opens the portals to protracted litigation not only among the opposing claimants, but also between said claimants and the Republic.
x x x x
WHEREAS, x x x the above-listed parties, being the present immediate relatives of the late [Eligio Cruz], who were impleaded as defendants or have filed for intervention in [the Interpleader], have agreed to settle the proceeds of the remaining portions amoul1lting to Php31,821,760.87.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above premises, the following are hereby stipulated:
GROUP IGROUP II
- The [h]eirs of Emilia Cruz represented by Maximino C. Agalabia shall receive the amount of ELEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php11,500,000.00);
- The [h]eirs of Victorina Cruz will receive as follows:
2.1 The family of the late ESTHER CRUZ represented by [CRISANTA OLIQUINO] who shall receive the amount of [TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php2,200,000.00)]. Said amount to be equally divided by them.
2.2 The family of the late REMIGIO CRUZ, the first group is represented by [CRISANTA OLIQUINO] who shall receive the amount of [TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php2,200,000.00)]. Said amount to be equally shared by them.
2.3 The family of the late NIEVES CRUZ of the first group is represented by MILAGROS PASCO who shall receive the amount of [TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php2,200,000.00)]. Said amount to be equally shared by them.
2.4 BELEN CRUZ SINGH and MA. LOURDES CRUZ shall receive the amount of [ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY SIX AND 67/100] (Php1,466,666.67). Said amount to be equally shared by them.- The remaining balance to be collected from the DPWH less the foregoing respective shares of the respective groups shall cover the taxes, attorney's fees, legal fees and other past and present expenses which were fully explained to the parties in the mediation proceedings and which they agreed to be likewise settled and released to [CRISANTA OLIQUINO].
- Relative to the claims of [the Estate of V. Uichanco] and [Atty. Borja], the two groups of heirs45 agreed as follows:
a) To deposit in [c]omi the amount of [ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS] (Php1,200,000.00), representing the claim of [the Estate of V. Uichanco] pending determination of [its] claim.
b) To deposit in [c]ourt the amount of [TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS] (Php200,000.00) representing the claim of [Atty. Borja] based on the principle of quantum meruit. x x x
c) And likewise relative to the claim of [the De Leon group], the two (2) groups of heirs further agreed to deposit the amount of [SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE AND 33/100] (Php733,333.33) representing their share[.]46 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Adjective law governing judicial compromises annunciate that once approved by the court, a judicial compromise is not appealable and it thereby becomes immediately executory but this rule must be understood to refer and apply only to those who are bound by the compromise and, on the assumption that they are the only parties to the case, the litigation comes to an end except only as regards to its compliance and the fulfillment by the parties of their respective obligations thereunder. x x xBy affirming the July 2011 Omnibus Order and November 2011 Order, the CA erroneously exposed the Republic to the very risk against which it sought protection through its Interpleader.
Where there are, along with the parties to the compromise, other persons involved in the litigation who have not taken part in concluding the compromise agreement but are adversely affected or feel prejudiced thereby, should not be precluded from invoking in the same proceedings an adequate relief therefor. A motion to set aside the judgment to the extent he might feel aggrieved, or might justifiably fear to be at risk by acquiescence unless timely invoked, is such a remedy. A denial of the motion to set aside the judgment on the compromise agreement opens the door for its possible elevation to a higher court. If the motion is denied, he may, considering the special finality feature of the compromise judgment, albeit partial, and its susceptibility to execution, take an appeal from the order of denial under Rule 45 or even, when circumstances particularly warrant, the extraordinary remedy prescribed in Rule 65, of the Rules of Court. That appeal notwithstanding, the main case still subsists allowing him to have continued locus standi.48 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
x x x Prior to the death of Eligio Cruz on April 19, 1983, i.e., from 1950 to [the] present, all derivative lots of Lot 643 had already been sold and undergone several changes/transfer of names or ownerships (sic) and nothing was left to Eligio Cruz. All 41,745 [square meters] which are derivatives of Lot 643 Piedad Estate were already declared for realty tax purposes.50 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution respectively dated March 12, 2013 and September 5, 2013 issued by the Court of Appeals Sixteenth Division in CA-G.R. SP. No. 123203 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018.
1Rollo, pp. 10-56, excluding Annexes.
2 Id. at 57-71. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier concurring.
3 Id. at 72-74.
4 Id. at 161 to 163-A. Penned by Judge Edgar Dalmacio Santos.
5 Id. at 190-193.
6 Also appears as Q-09-65409 in some parts of the rollo.
7Rollo, p. 58.
8 Id. at 59.
9 Id. at 60.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 60-61.
13 Id. at 61.
14 Id.
15 See id. at 19.
16 Id. at 61.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 20, 61.
19 See id. at 21.
20 See id.
21 Id. at 63.
22 Id. at 21-22.
23 Id. at 22.
24 See id.
25 Id. at 163-A.
26 Id. at 64-65, 164-169 and 175-188. Motion for Reconsideration (on the Omnibus Order dated July 25, 2011), Motion to Quash (Writ of Execution and Order of Delivery of Money), and Motion to Lift Notice of Garnishment.
27 Id. at 192.
28 Id. at 194-231.
29 See id. at 65-66.
30 Id.
31 Id. at 219.
32 Id. at 70.
33 Id. at 67.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 Id. at 72-74.
37 Id. at 11.
38 Id. at 2-6, 11.
39 Id. at 10.
40 Id. at 335-344, 358-364.
41 Id. at 398-408.
42Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 370 Phil. 150, 163 (1999).
43 Id. at 163.
44Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 152797, 189315 & 200684, October 21, 2015 (Unsigned Resolution).
45 The Oliquino and Agalabia groups.
46Rollo, pp. 61-63.
47 Supra note 42.
48 Id. at 164-165.
49 Annex "CC," rollo, p. 325.
50 Id. at 48, 325.