447 Phil. 150
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On May 15, 1989 and thereafter, however, CSDC paid BPI only
- That effective November 16, 1988 for a term of one year, defendant agrees to pay a new monthly rate of
P26,116.39. For this purpose, a new contract of lease shall be executed by the parties.
On June 18, 1990, BPI filed another complaint against CSDC for unlawful detainer (the second case) before the Quezon City MeTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 2996, on the grounds that the lease contract had expired and that CSDC had not paid the agreed rentals.x x x
Plaintiff have (sic) executed to the full satisfaction the arrearages and allegedly defendant failed to pay the monthly rental for which reason plaintiff corporation sought for the eviction of defendant. The compromise agreement however does not speak of ejection in case of violation. Plaintiff in its motion, in effect seeks to modify the compromise agreement. A compromise agreement is considered final and executory and as held in the case of Sps. Santiago vs. IAC, I-73202, April 9, 1986, a Decision being final and executory can no longer be altered, modified or reversed by the trial court nor by the appellate court.
While Article 2041 of the Civil Code provides for a remedy to a party in a compromise agreement to either enforce the compromise or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand should one of the parties fails or refuses to abide by the compromise, this cannot hold water to herein plaintiff who have (sic) already sought enforcement of the compromise agreement.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Execution directing the Sheriff to eject the defendant filed by plaintiff on April 19, 1990 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.x x x (Underscoring supplied.)
the sum ofBoth parties appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. By Decision of June 14, 1993 [6], Branch 81 of the RTC affirmed the dismissal of the second case but on a different ground, to wit: that, as contended by CSDC, MeTC Branch 38 had no jurisdiction over the second case, BPI having therein sought to enforce the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement forged in the first case, hence, BPI’s remedy was to seek enforcement of the compromise agreement in the first case before MeTC Branch 35, citing Tiongson v. Court of Appeals.[7]P39,864.98 as compensation for its use and occupancy of… Bay 4 and 5… plus the sum ofP26,116.39 thereafter as monthly rentals… for Bay 4.[5]
Basic is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action is conferred by law and not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside (La Naval Drug Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 78). Under Section 33 (2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the “Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980”, as amended by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7691, municipal trial courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer.It accordingly reversed the Decision of the RTC, it finding that the lease agreement had expired and as CSDC “continues to enjoy the premises leased with the acquiescence of [BPI], an implied new lease is created for the period mentioned in Art. 1687, Civil Code, [and] [t]he other terms of the original contract are revived.”[10] It thus ordered CSDC to immediately vacate the leased premises and return the possession thereof to BPI, and to pay the rentals due thereon in accordance with the compromise agreement.[11]
The action of the petitioner in filing a separate suit for ejectment before the M[e]TC, Branch 38 was predicated upon the violation by the private respondent of the terms and conditions of the lease contract embodied in the compromise agreement and after the M[e]TC, Branch 35, which rendered the compromise judgment, correctly rejected BPI’s motion to eject CSDC from the premises of Bay(s) 4 and 5 on the ground that ejectment is not a remedy provided for under the compromise in case of violation of its terms by the private respondent and to grant such plea would amount to modifying its final judgment. The M[e]TC, Branch 35 could not have ruled otherwise without doing violence to the settled rule that a court can no longer amend, modify, much less set aside its judgment once the same has become final. (Emphasis in the original; Underscoring supplied.)[9]
In its comment to the petition, BPI argued that CSDC was challenging the trial court’s decision and not that of the Court of Appeals, prompting CSDC to file on March 31, 1996 an Addendum[13] to the petition and assign the following errors:
- WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENT CAN VALIDLY FILE AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE (CIVIL CASE No. 2996) BEFORE THE M[e]TC, BRANCH 38, QUEZON CITY, NOTWITHSTANDING THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES IN AN EARLIER UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE (CIVIL CASE No. 48285) BEFORE THE M[e]TC-BRANCH 35, QUEZON CITY;
- WHETHER OR NOT THE LEASE PERIOD PROVIDED FOR IN THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT HAD EXPIRED;
- WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER MAY BE ORDERED TO VACATE THE SUBJECT PREMISES.[12]
In the main, CSDC contends that since BPI seeks the enforcement of the compromise agreement forged in the first case, “what [BPI] should have done is to move for the issuance of a writ of execution.” In any event, CSDC contends that the filing of the second case is improper because the parties had agreed on CSDC’s relinquishing of Bay 5 and that the lease contract had not expired.
- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING SECTION 3 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7691; [an act amending the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980].
- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE FILING OF THE CASE BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 38 IS THE PROPER REMEDY TAKEN BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS;
- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CANNOT BE UPHELD;
- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS ESTOPPED TO QUESTION THE BELIEF OF THE PETITIONER THAT THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THEM AS TO THE LATTER’S RELINGUISHING [SIC] OF ITS RIGHTS TO BAY 5;
- THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT CSDC IS STILL OCCUPYING BAY 5.
BPI thus anchored its cause of action in the second case, in the main, on the expiration of the lease contract reflected in the compromise agreement, CSDC’s failure to pay back rentals, and CSDC’s refusal to vacate the leased units, hence, the complaint for unlawful detainer.x x x
- That on May 2, 1989, plaintiff [BPI] and defendant [CSDC] entered into a compromise agreement in Civil Case No. 35-48285 whereby defendant agreed to lease the aforementioned property for a term of one year from November 16, 1988 and to pay a monthly rental of
P26,116.39. A copy of said compromise agreement is hereto attached as Annex “A”.- That the said lease agreement contained in the compromise agreement expired last November 16, 1989 and the defendant likewise failed to pay the agreed rent which as of May 31, 1990 amounted to
P39,864.98.- That despite the expiry of the lease agreement and plaintiff’s demands to settle its obligation, defendant failed to pay his back rents and refused to vacate the abovementioned premises. A copy of the final demand letter is hereto attached as Annex “B”.
x x x (Emphasis and Underscoring supplied.)
indicates otherwise.
- That effective November 16, 1988 for a term of one year, defendant agrees to pay a new monthly rental rate of
P26,116.39. For this purpose, a new contract of lease shall be executed by the parties. (Emphasis supplied.)