Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 47792. July 24, 1941. ]

DANIEL MARQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORIO MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Godofredo Reyes, for Appellant.

Sumulong, Lavides & Sumulong, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. JUDGMENT UPON COMPROMISE; VIOLATION THEREOF MAY BE DEALT WITH AS FOR CONTEMPT. — It is a cherished rule of procedure that a court should always strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation. Stipulations in a compromise approved by the court become orders of the court contained in the judgment rendered in accordance with the compromise, and such judgment being one requiring the performance of an act other than the payment of money, or the sale or delivery of real or personal property, is considered as a special judgment enforcible by proceedings as for contempt. (Sec. 446, Act No. 190, now Rule 39, sec. 9.) If, therefore, after service of a copy of the judgment upon the defendant, as required in the legal provisions abovecited, defendant violates the order or orders contained in the judgment, he may be dealt with as for contempt.

2. ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — In the judgment sought to be enforced, defendant is bound, from Monday to Thursday of every week, to close the canal at points 2, 4 and 5 in the plan, Annex A, to permit plaintiff the exclusive enjoyment of the waters during said days, and if defendant does something by which the waters are prevented from flowing to plaintiff is property, he is liable for contempt.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; MATTER NOT CONVERED BY JUDGMENT; EXCESS OF COURTiS JURISDICTION. — The order of the trial court directing defendant not to close the right of way existing on the north and south of the portion ceded to him in the compromise is null and void, it having been issued in excess of the courtis jurisdiction. This right of way is not a matter covered by the judgment sought to be enforced. It is completely a new matter and cannot be acted upon in a mere petition for execution of judgment.


D E C I S I O N


MORAN, J.:


In the plan, Annex A, there are three contiguous parcels of land, the first situated on the North, belonging to defendant Gregorio Marquez, formerly to Severo Jurado; the second, on the south, belonging to plaintiff Daniel Marquez; and the third also on the south and adjoining the second, belonging to defendant Gregorio Marquez. A dispute having arisen between the two brothers, Daniel and Gregorio, as to the distribution and use of the waters flowing through these parcels from the north to the south, civil case No. 3832 was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas by Daniel Marquez against Gregorio Marquez which was compromised in the following manner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Las partes en los dos asuntos arriba titulados, Daniel Marquez y Gregorio Marquez, asistidas de sus respectivos abogados, deseando dar fin a los dos litigios ahora pendientes, han convenido en transigirlos como por la presente los transigen en los terminos y condiciones que a continuacion se expresan:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1.
Top of Page