SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200180. January 7, 2019.]
BENJAMIN H. CABAÑEZ, petitioner,vs. MARIE JOSEPHINE CORDERO SOLANO A.K.A. MA. JOSEPHINE S. CABAÑEZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 7, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200180 (Benjamin H. Cabañez v. Marie Josephine Cordero Solano a.k.a. Ma. Josephine S. Cabañez). — The Court NOTES the Vehement Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration dated October 15, 2018, filed by the heirs of Spouses Benjamin and Leandra D. Cabañez, of the Decision dated June 6, 2016, with comment on the compromise agreement.
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration 1 of this Court's June 6, 2016 Decision filed by herein respondent, manifesting that as early as February 18, 2013, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement, 2 the pertinent portions of which read as follows:
In today's Pre-Trial Conference, after discussing the problem and in order to put an end to all the legal problems of the parties, the parties, upon the intercession of the Court, have entered into the following Compromise Agreement:
1. That all the cases involving the parties are to be dismissed or terminated and no more new cases shall be filed by the parties; and
2. That Mr. Benjamin Cabañez obligated himself to give monthly support in the sum of P75,000.00 to Kristina Blanca Solano Cabañez and another P75,000.00 to Kyle Luigi Solano Cabañez. The amount should be given every 15th and 30th day of every month starting February 2013.
(SGD.) BENJAMIN H. CABAÑEZ
(SGD.) MARIE JOSEPHINE C. SOLANO
(SGD.) KYLE LUIGI S. CABAÑEZ
Assisted by:
(SGD.) ATTY. SHIN KENNETH A. SOLIDEO
(SGD.) ATTY. RODERICK MANZANO
and that the Court of Appeals (CA) approved said Compromise Agreement via a Resolution 3 promulgated by the appellate court on even date.
Respondent now contends that, based on the above-quoted Compromise Agreement, it is clear that both petitioner and respondent no longer intend to proceed with this case, among other cases, and that with the signing of the said Agreement, petitioner "essentially abandoned his rights in this case as well as his interest over the subject matter thereof." 4
Respondent prays that this Court reconsider its June 6, 2016 Decision and reinstate the August 9, 2011 Amended Decision of the CA.
On the other hand, the heirs of the spouses Benjamin and Leandra Cabañez filed their Vehement Opposition 5 to the present Motion for Reconsideration, contending that if the above-quoted Compromise Agreement is sustained, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City in Civil Case No. 91-2648, which found that the ownership of the subject property belongs to the Spouses Cabañez, would, in effect, be nullified.
After a careful consideration of the parties' respective positions, the Court finds that the instant Motion for Reconsideration lacks of merit.
At the outset, it bears to point out that, prior to the present Motion for Reconsideration, the parties never informed the Court of the existence of the subject Compromise Agreement. The parties are reminded that the obligation to inform this Court of the existence of the Compromise Agreement is as much a responsibility of the respondent as that of the petitioner.
Going to the merits of the instant Motion for Reconsideration, this Court has noted, in its June 6, 2016 Decision, that in a separate action for annulment of title and recovery of ownership filed by Leandra against herein respondent, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 137, in its decision in Civil Case No. 91-2648, dated July 5, 1993, ruled that Benjamin and Leandra are the lawful owners of the subject properties and ordered respondent to surrender possession thereof to the said spouses. 6 This RTC judgment was later affirmed by the CA in its Decision 7 in CA-G.R. CV No. 49446, dated April 29, 1997.
In this regard, it must be stressed that the rights to the succession of the compulsory heirs of Benjamin and Leandra vested, by operation of law, from the moment of their parents' death. Insofar as the heirs of Leandra are concerned, their rights to succession became vested when Leandra died in 2010. As such, their respective shares in the ownership of the subject property, a portion of which forms part of the estate of Leandra, is no longer inchoate; it became absolute upon Leandra's death, although their respective shares therein remained pro indiviso. Hence, at the time the subject Compromise Agreement was entered into and approved in 2013, the heirs of Leandra were already co-owners of the subject property. As such, their respective shares in the disputed property may not be validly included in the subject Compromise Agreement without their knowledge and consent, especially since the said Compromise Agreement has the effect of disposing of the contested property in favor of third persons. It is clear from the foregoing that the heirs of Leandra were not parties to the Compromise Agreement. Moreover, their opposition to the present Motion for Reconsideration, as well as their objection to the subject Compromise Agreement, can be treated as an adverse claim over the disputed property, which makes respondent's case fall outside the coverage of the summary proceedings under Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, as discussed in the assailed Decision.
As a final note, it appearing from the parties' pleadings that the disputed property has not been adjudicated to any of the heirs of Benjamin and Leandra, the parties' respective claims over the said property should be properly threshed out in the special proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Benjamin and Leandra.
WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." (Reyes, A., Jr., J., on leave.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 366-378.
2.Id. at 398.
3.Id. at 380-381.
4.Id. at 367.
5.Id. at 435-442.
6. See RTC Decision, id. at 98-102.
7.Rollo, pp. 103-112.