325 Phil. 469
KAPUNAN, J.:
WHEREFORE, the parties hereto respectfully pray that judgment be rendered in accordance with the foregoing compromise agreement, without pronouncement as to costs.COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
Intervenor and plaintiffs Fausto Bajamonde, Gregorio Bajamonde, Juan Bajamonde, Damaso Bajamonde, Andres Bajamonde, Perfecto Bajamonde, Sixta Cleofas, Rosita Domingo, Catalina Pascual, Macaria Santos, Evaristo Aquino, Narciso Aquino and Lazaro Pineda, assisted by their respective counsel, respectfully manifest that they have arrived at an amicable settlement of their case, as follows:
1. That plaintiffs herein admit all the allegations and prayer of intervenor’s complaint in intervention;
2. That immediately upon acquisition of title to their respective lots, plaintiffs herein shall convey the same to intervenor by way of absolute sale, free from all liens and encumbrances, except any prior lien in favor of defendants, for the purchase price of P5.55 per square meter, to be paid by intervenor, in the following manner:in accordance with the schedule, marked Annex ‘A’, which is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof;
P11,600.00 -previously paid to and acknowledged by plaintiffs herein. 110,634.62 -upon execution of this agreement, as follows: P60,000.00 -directly to plaintiffs herein. 50,634.62 -to defendant PHHC, for plaintiffs’ account, as 10% initial down-payment on the purchase price of the lots, due to said defendants from plaintiffs. 101,269.24 -upon court approval of this agreement - to be paid to defendant PHHC, for the account of plaintiffs herein, to complete the required 30% downpayment on said lots. 53,335.75 -upon transfer of title in the name of intervenor. 462,692.34 -balance of purchase price, to be liquidated in five years, in ten equal semestral installments.
3. That the purchase price to be paid by intervenor for the individual lots of plaintiffs herein shall be subject to adjustment, in accordance with the actual survey of said lots to be made by defendant PHHC, duly approved by the proper government office;
4. That plaintiffs shall, immediately upon demand of intervenor, execute any and all other documents which may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this agreement;
5. That plaintiffs shall deliver possession of said lots to intervenor, immediately upon payment of the aforesaid sum of P101,269.24, free from all other occupants;
6. That intervenor is hereby authorized to advance, for the account of plaintiffs herein, any and all amounts necessary to expedite the latter’s acquisition of title, which amounts shall be deducted from the purchase price of their respective lots, due to them from intervenor;
7. That for the sake of expediency, payments of the amounts mentioned herein above, except those to defendants, shall be made by intervenor thru plaintiff Marciano Baylon, who is hereby authorized by plaintiffs herein to receive the same for and in their behalf, and to issue the corresponding receipts there for;
8. That documentation, notarization and other incidental expenses to be incurred in the transfer of title from plaintiffs to intervenor shall be for the account of the latter;
9. That if, for any reason whatsoever, conveyance of title to intervenor could not be affected, plaintiffs herein shall, upon demand from intervenor, reimburse the latter of any and all amounts paid by intervenor under this agreement; provided, however, that intervenor’s right to reimbursement under this agreement shall be without prejudice to other legal remedies which intervenor may elect in the alternative, including the right to ask for and receive the refund of whatever amounts it has advanced or paid for plaintiffs’ account;
10. That, as security for the performance of plaintiffs’ obligation under this agreement, plaintiffs herein hereby assigns, transfers and conveys to intervenor, all their rights, interests and participation over their lots aforementioned;
11. That in the event of default by either of the parties hereto, the defaulting party shall pay liquidated damages and attorney’s fees equivalent to 25% of the amount involved.
On December 23, 1961, the trial court approved the above Compromise Agreement in a partial decision embodying the said agreement.[3]
Sgd.
FAUSTO BAJAMONDE
Plaintiff Sgd.
GREGORIO BAJAMONDE
Plaintiff Sgd.
JUAN BAJAMONDE
Plaintiff Sgd.
DAMASO BAJAMONDE
Plaintiff Sgd.
ANDRES BAJAMONDE
Plaintiff Sgd.
SIXTA CLEOFAS
Plaintiff Sgd.
PERFECTO BAJAMONDE
Plaintiff Sgd.
ROSITA DOMINGO
Plaintiff Sgd.
CATALINA PASCUAL
Plaintiff Sgd
MACARIA SANTOS
Plaintiff Sgd.
EVARISTO AQUINO
Plaintiff Sgd.
NARCISO AQUINO
Plaintiff Sgd
LAZARO PINEDA
Plaintiff Sgd.
CRISPIN D. BAIZAS
Counsel for Plaintiffs Shurdut Bldg., Manila ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE
(Now ARANETA UNIVERSITY)
Intervenor By: Sgd.
SALVADOR ARANETA
ROQUE & DAVID By: Sgd.
PORFIRIO C. DAVID
Counsel for Intervenor
R-410 Phil. Bank of Commerce Bldg.
Plaza Sta. Cruz, Manila[2]
WHEREFORE, the PHHC (now National Housing Authority) is ordered to comply with the Partial Decision dated December 23, 1961 by executing a Deed of Conveyance and/or transfer and delivering the titles of the lots originally awarded to plaintiffs Rosita Domingo respecting Lot 48 free from all liens and encumbrances in favor of Intervenor Araneta Institute of Agriculture upon proof of payment by the intervenor of the purchase price.Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above-quoted order but the same was denied on January 22, 1988.[5]
So Ordered.[4]
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated January 22, 1988 [filed by intervenor-private respondent] is hereby GRANTED.From the said order, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals raising as issues the following, to wit: (a) the validity of the Compromise Agreement and the propriety of its approval in the decision of December 23, 1961; (b) the applicability of the nullification of the Compromise Agreement and Partial Decision by the same court on December 20, 1985; and (c) assuming that the Compromise Agreement is valid, the correctness of the finding that intervenor-private respondent complied with the terms and obligations of the agreement.
As prayed for, let a writ of execution be issued for the enforcement of the Compromise Agreement dated November 28, 1961 and the partial Decision dated December 23, 1961, ordering plaintiff Rosita Domingo:
1. To execute a deed of absolute sale of Lot 48 in favor of Intervenor Araneta Institute of Agriculture; and
2. To deliver immediately the possession of said lot to said Intervenor Araneta Institute of Agriculture.
SO ORDERED.[6]
We shall address the first and second issues.Appellant’s contention cannot be sustained.
Plaintiff-appellant maintains that the so-called compromise agreement dated November 28, 1961 and the partial decision dated December 23, 1961 approving said agreement are null and void, as discussed and decided in the Order of December 20, 1985 x x x.
We find appellant’s contention unmeritorious.
Plaintiff-appellant filed Civil Case No. 473 against Araneta Institute of Agriculture, et al., before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 120, to annul the partial decision of December 23, 1961, involving the thirteen (13) tenants of whom she was one of them. That case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order of dismissal was not appealed.xxx
It will be observed that whatever the court a quo said about the Partial Decision dated December 23, 1961, rendered by Judge Andres Reyes, approving and embodying the Compromise Agreement dated November 23, 1961 were obiter dicta. Being a compromise judgment, it was final and immediately executory (Pamintuan vs. Muñoz, 22 SCRA 1109, 1111; Pasay City Government vs. CFI Manila, 132 SCRA 156, 157), unless a motion is filed to set aside the compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake, duress, in which event, an appeal may be taken from the order denying the motion (De los Reyes v. Ugarte, 75 Phil. 505 [1945]; Piano vs. Cayanong, et al., 7 SCRA 397 [1963]; Cadano, et al. vs. Cadano, 49 SCRA 33 [1973]; Zagala vs. Jimenez, 152 SCRA 147, 157 [1987]). In the case at bar, no such motion was filed. Moreover, said partial decision of Judge Reyes was not an issue submitted to the trial court in the Motion to Execute Partial Decision dated December 23, 1961 on the basis of the Compromise Agreement dated December 11, 1961. As a matter of fact, tbe dispositive portion of the Order of December 20, 1985 did not declare the aforesaid partial decision (compromise judgment) dated March 23, 1961 null and void.xxx
On the third issue, appellant contends that the alleged intervenor’s compliance with its contractual obligation has not been proven; that the trial court has ruled on the tenants’ right of recission vis-a-vis the alleged agreement; and that the illegible photocopies of alleged payment receipts were not duly presented and offered in evidence.
To the motion for reconsideration of the Order dated January 22, 1988, filed by Intervenor-appellee on February 19, 1988, has been attached Annexes "A" to "E", including Official Receipts dated December 6, 1961 and December 22, 1961 showing payments made by Intervenor in compliance with the compromise judgment. We agree with the trial court in finding them to be sufficient proof of compliance by the Intervenor with the terms and conditions of the compromise judgment in question. In the Order of July 7, 1988, the trial court ruled:The petitioner is now before this Court raising the same issues brought to respondent court for consideration, viz: (a) the validity of the Compromise Agreement and the partial decision approving the same; and (b) the admission in evidence of the receipts of payment made by private respondent to petitioner.[8]
Now in the intervenor’s Motion for Reconsideration, it has averted that the sum of P1 10,634.62 and the sum of P101,269.24 have been paid in compliance with the provisions of said Compromise Agreement and which are evidence by documents and receipts marked as Annexes "A" to "E" and Exhibits "1", "1-A" to "1-K"; Exhibits "4", "4-A" to "4-K".
Worthwhile noting is the Official Receipt No. 6094757, marked as Annex "1-D", dated December 6, 1961, evidencing payment of P4,883.00 to plaintiff Rosita Domingo for the ten (10%) percent down payment of the purchase price of the lot awarded to her by the PHHC consisting of 12,800 square meters. Likewise, in another Official Receipt No. 6096479, marked as Annex "4-D", dated December 29, 1961, for the payment of P9,766.00 to plaintiff Rosita Domingo, as part payment of the price of the lot equivalent to twenty (20%) percent of the Gonzales Estate, Baesa, Caloocan City.
It bears emphasis that the aforementioned payments of P4,683.00 (Annex "1-D") and P9,766.00 (Annex "4-D") to Rosita Domingo are NOT DENIED either in the Opposition to the Motion for Execution or in the Memorandum for Rosita Domingo.
Parenthetically, the photo copies of the receipts submitted by the intervenor are legible enough for credible accounting purposes, contrary to plaintiff’s claim.
Viewed from the foregoing, the ineluctably follows, that the Intervenor, indeed, has fulfilled its obligation under the aforementioned compromise agreement of November 28, 1961, as approved by the partial decision dated December 23, 1961.[7]