FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228658. March 18, 2021.]
SPOUSES HERMINIO AND ASUNCION CARLOS, SUBSTITUTED BY: THE HEIRS OF THE LATE HERMINIO CARLOS, NAMELY: ASUNCION Z. CARLOS, SURVIVING WIFE AND CHILDREN: MARIA THERESA Z. CARLOS-ZAPANTA, HERMINIO CARLOS, JR., AND MARIA JOSEPHINA CARLOS-CAMCAM, petitioners,vs. SPOUSES BENITO AND TEODORA ANTIPASO, SPOUSES LEOPOLDO AND NORRIE BARCELO AND JOHN DOE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 18, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 228658 (Spouses Herminio and Asuncion Carlos, substituted by: The Heirs of the Late Herminio Carlos, namely: Asuncion Z. Carlos, Surviving Wife and children: Maria Theresa Z. Carlos-Zapanta, Herminio Carlos, Jr., and Maria Josephina Carlos-Camcam, petitioners v. Spouses Benito and Teodora Antipaso, Spouses Leopoldo and Norrie Barcelo and John Doe, respondents). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure seeks to annul the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)-Cagayan de Oro City dated July 7, 2016 in CA-G.R. CV No. 03635-MIN dismissing the appeal they filed, thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Joint Order dated October 18, 2013, denying the motion for reconsideration of the Order dated June 13, 2013, of the Regional Trial Court of Tagum City, Davao del Norte, 11th Judicial Region, Branch 1, in Misc. Case Nos. 3989 and 3990 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 2
Involved in this case are two parcels of land located in Cuambogan, Tagum City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Numbers T-64455 3 and T-64454 4 registered at the Office of the Registry of Deeds from the Province of Davao del Norte in the names of Teodora Juanillo married to Benito Antipaso and Norrie Juanillo married to Leopoldo Barcelo. 5
Currently, these properties are now under the names of Maria Theresa Z. Carlos-Zapanta, married to Robert Jose U. Zapanta; Herminio Z. Carlos, Jr., married to Jonamay S. Carlos; and Maria Josephina Z. Carlos-Camcam, married to Anthony C. Camcam with TCT Nos. 142-2013006497 and 142-2013006498. 6
Being the highest bidders in an extra-judicial foreclosure sale of real estate mortgage involving the subject parcels of land, herein petitioners spouses Herminio and Asuncion Carlos (spouses Carlos) filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 7 on August 18, 2009, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City, Davao del Norte, against respondents spouses Benito and Teodora Antipaso (spouses Antipaso), spouses Leopoldo and Norrie Barcelo 8 (spouses Barcelo) and John Doe. 9 The case was raffled to RTC Branch 30, Tagum City and was docketed as Misc. Case No. 3989. 10
Another ex-parte petition for issuance of writ of possession was filed by spouses Carlos against the respondents and this was raffled to RTC Branch 1 and docketed as Misc. Case No. 3990. 11
Subsequently, spouses Carlos filed a motion to consolidate cases and this was granted by the RTC in an Order dated July 23, 2011, ordering that Misc. Case No. 3989 pending before RTC Branch 30 be consolidated with Misc. Case No. 3990. 12
However, herein respondents, who failed to redeem their properties within the one-year redemption period, opposed the issuance of a writ of possession alleging that there is a pending case for annulment of certificate of sale, repurchase and damages which they filed against spouses Carlos and the mortgagee bank. 13
Spouses Carlos, on the other hand, argued that the issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser is a ministerial act and that any question regarding the validity of the mortgage or its foreclosure is not a legal ground to stay the issuance of the writ. 14
Thereafter, joint hearings on the consolidated cases ensued. ITAaHc
After several postponements, respondents again manifested that they would file a new motion to show that there was a prejudicial question which should be addressed first before spouses Carlos could rightfully seek the issuance of a writ of possession of the subject parcels of land. 15
On February 20, 2012, respondents filed a Memorandum praying for the dismissal of the ex-parte petitions. This time, they alleged that spouses Carlos violated the rule on forum shopping when they filed the two ex-parte petitions before RTC Branch 1 and RTC Branch 30 as both cases, according to them, involved same parties, cause of action and properties.
This was denied by RTC Branch 1 in an Order dated April 25, 2012 stating that there was no forum shopping as the subject matter in Misc. Case No. 3989 was the property registered in the name of respondent Norrie Juanillo-Barcilo, while the subject matter of Misc. Case No. 3990 is the property owned by Teodora Juanillo married to Benito Antipaso. 16
Hence, respondents moved for the reconsideration of the Order. However, instead of resolving the motion, RTC Branch 1, with the conformity of the parties, conducted instead a Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR). 17
After a successful JDR, RTC Branch 1 issued a Joint Order dated July 6, 2012 with the following agreement made by the parties during the JDR, to wit:
Thus, the petitioners agreed to receive 1.5 hectares or 15,000 sq.m. out of the total area of 2.5426 hectares (25,426 sq.m.) and the remaining area of 1.0426 hectare[s] (or 10,426 sq.m.) shall be retained by the respondents; provided that the 1.5 hectares (15,000 sq.m.) shall be devoid of occupants and structures. The area to be given to the respondents shall contain the basketball court and the graveyard within its boundaries.
Respondents divulged that they knew someone, who would like to buy even a portion of the property. Now that they learned of the intention of petitioners to sell, they would inform said buyer, so that the petitioners could agree with that buyer directly.
The Court suggested that the presiding judge and its personnel would conduct an ocular inspection, to which both parties agree; so that the area to be assigned to the petitioners would be immediately determined. Both the petitioners and the Court would like to see the exact portion of 1.5 hectare[s] to be assigned to the petitioners, which per agreement of the parties should have no structures or occupant. But in case a portion thereof shall have any existing structures or occupants, the same shall be removed or the area vacated within a reasonable time. 18
Thereafter, an ocular inspection was conducted and another Joint Order was issued by RTC Branch 1 dated July 17, 2012. It declared:
Upon reaching the site, the Spouses Carlos manifested that they would like to amend that part of the Joint Order (Successful JDR) dated 6 July 2012, x x x. According to petitioners (Sps. Carlos), their intention is to only give one (1) hectare (10,000 sq.m.) no more, no less to the oppositors/respondents (former owners) [s]isters Teodora Antipaso and Norrie Barcelo. Because of this turn of events, the Court again talked to the sisters Teodora and Norrie, who asked consideration from Spouses Carlos to give them that small area of 426 sq.m. considering that it was agreed that the basketball court and the graveyard were to be placed inside their one-hectare share. But the Carloses would not agree. Thus, the Court advised the sisters to just give in provided that their houses would remain along the road and the couple's share, which, anyway, would be sold to the adjacent banana chip factory, would be at the back adjacent to the wall of the banana chip factory; because to dismantle the houses along the road would entail expenses and damages to the so many houses constructed along the road. With the deal already in place, the ocular inspection team proceeded to the back of the property, which is vacant, save for the vegetable garden and the three (3) graves stationed therein. Since that area is vacant, the same would be the area sold to the buyer; and if any structures (say, the graves and the vegetable garden) would need to be removed to give way to clear the area that would be turned over to the buyer of the Spouses Carlos, then, the same should be done voluntarily by the sisters, who agree to give the excess 426 sq.m. to Sps. Carlos, provided that they (Antipaso and Barcelo) would retain their occupation along the road.
The Court hereby directs the sisters Teodora Antipaso and Norrie Barcelo to negotiate with their neighbor, prospective buyer, so that only the back portion of the property shall be the subject of purchase in order not to displace the houses of the occupants and the former owner already existing alongside the road.
Survey shall be conducted after a buyer shall have accepted the offer to sell subject area. 19
Later however, the parties again had a disagreement and opted not to honor their earlier compromise agreement. Hence, RTC Branch 1 issued an Order dated November 29, 2012 declaring that the "parties are back in square one." 20 Likewise, the RTC set the consolidated cases for another JDR stating that there could be other buyers in favor of spouses Carlos as what the parties originally agreed upon. 21
On March 14, 2013, RTC Branch 1 issued another Joint Order 22 (successful JDR) stating therein that the parties agreed to honor their previous agreement of having the subject properties partitioned, that is, one hectare will go to Antipaso and Barcelo and the remaining 1.5426 hectares will go to spouses Carlos in accordance with the latter's partition plan. 23 CHTAIc
Subsequently, on March 16, 2013, RTC Branch 1 issued a Joint Order Ocular Inspection (Determination of Boundaries in Accordance [with] the Survey Desired by the Petitioners). The survey was conducted by a certain Engr. Tatad whom spouses Carlos commissioned. Respondents Antipaso and Barcelo then were directed to remove the affected houses or structures within the area chosen by the petitioners. 24
However, spouses Carlos later on filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of interest and hostility to further prosecute the case. 25 They manifested that they no longer desire to push through with the amicable settlement as they have decided to convey the subject properties to their children as payment of their financial obligations considering that they are already of advanced age and they needed to pay for their hospitalization expenses, food and other special needs. 26
On June 13, 2013, RTC Branch 1 issued an Order denying the petitioners' Motion to Dismiss. 27 According to the RTC, it could not allow the petitioners to renege on their obligation under the compromise agreement as the parties have already complied with their respective obligations. Likewise, the respondents have already removed the cadavers of their ancestors and dismantled their houses and transferred the same to their area which the petitioners themselves designated for them. Moreover, the RTC deemed it unfair for the respondents if it would allow the dismissal of the case as moved by the petitioners considering the effort which the former have already exerted and the money they had spent in order to comply with their part of the agreement. The RTC disposed:
Parties are hereby directed to comply faithfully with their respective commitment pursuant to the successful JDR proceedings and to submit a Compliance Report within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
SO ORDERED. 28
Apparently unsatisfied with the foregoing pronouncement, petitioners then filed a Motion for Substitution and Reconsideration with Prayer for Issuance of the Writ of Possession alleging that petitioner Herminio Carlos, Sr., had died. 29 The heirs likewise indicated therein that while they have "unanimously decided not to dismiss the petition" they, however, wanted to continue the initial action their parents had filed which was for the issuance of a writ of possession over the subject properties considering that the same is ministerial to the court. 30
This was denied by the RTC for lack of merit in a Joint Order dated October 18, 2013. 31
Thus, the filing of an appeal before the CA as the petitioners insisted that the RTC erred in denying the issuance of a writ of possession. Petitioners further argued that it was erroneous for RTC Branch 1 to declare that there had been a successful JDR between the parties.
As stated at the outset, the CA dismissed their appeal. Their motion for reconsideration was likewise denied for lack of merit in a Resolution 32 dated October 10, 2016.
Hence, petitioners are now before the Court with the issues of: (a) whether there was a valid compromise agreement between the parties which arose from a JDR; and (b) whether the CA erred in declaring that petitioners waived their right for issuance of a writ of possession on the basis of a compromise agreement. 33
The petition lacks merit.
From the foregoing, it is undeniable that spouses Carlos were the rightful owners of the subject parcels of land. They validly purchased the same via extra-judicial foreclosure sale and, as respondents failed to redeem the properties, they earned the right of possession especially that the titles have already been consolidated under their names. Clearly, during this stage, it became ministerial on the part of the court to issue a writ of possession in favor of spouses Carlos.
However, it should be emphasized that their right over the subject parcels of land was deemed waived when spouses Carlos entered into an agreement with the respondents during the JDR proceedings. These proceedings were actively participated in by the parties with the assistance of their respective legal counsels and the proceedings were properly explained by the RTC Presiding Judge thus, giving way to the parties' voluntary and amicable settlement of their dispute and the subsequent compromise agreement between them. This compromise agreement, absent any evidence of it being contrary to law, moral and good customs, or any allegation of vitiated consent, is presumed to be valid and has the force and effect of a judgment which is binding to all the parties. EATCcI
Indeed, as ruled in the case of Sonley v. Anchor Savings Bank/Equicom Savings Bank, 34 a compromise agreement becomes the law between the parties. Its purpose is to put an end to litigation because of the uncertainty that may arise from it. 35 Once the compromise is perfected, the parties are bound to abide by it good faith. 36
The CA stated:
When Spouses Carlos actively participated during the JDR proceedings and ocular inspections, hired a geodetic engineer to survey the properties for the partition thereof, and failed to object to the Orders of the Successful JDR after these were issued, their waiver of their right of possession over the entire property under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 became manifest and clear. 37
Moreover, spouses Carlos' claim that there had been a "failed" JDR for the reason that the supposed buyer of the property backed out and that respondents allegedly failed to comply with their part of the agreement such as the removal of the cadavers, houses and structures, the shouldering of the expenses of survey, and the chosen location of the 1.5426 hectares adjacent to the Prime Fruits Corporation to be given to them by the respondents, 38 is not a justification for them or their heirs to move for the dismissal of the case and then pursue their initial action of seeking a writ of possession under Act No. 3135.
First, it was already established below that respondents performed their end of the agreement. RTC Branch 1, in its Joint Order dated October 18, 2013, declared:
After everything has been done, it is bad faith on the part of the petitioners to back out from their agreement; note that it is the petitioners-spouses who hire the surveyor (Engr. Tatad) to subdivide the subject property according to their (petitioners') desire, and which was implemented. Hence, it would be greatly unjust to back out from the agreement when the respondents had complied with what petitioners required them to do, to the extent of spending for the survey cost, the removal of their houses, and the reconstruction of their houses at the site assigned to them by petitioners themselves, including the removal; of the graves of respondents' ancestors, which were transferred to the area assigned to respondents by the petitioners. 39
Like the petitioners, respondents also hired geodetic engineers. Hence, spouses Carlos' assertion that they failed to comply with the compromise agreement has no basis.
Second, the fact that the supposed buyer backed out is not a sufficient reason to invalidate the compromise agreement as it did not change in any way the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement between the parties.
If the petitioners' assertions were true, petitioners could not just resort to dismissal of the case as there are remedies provided for the parties to a compromise agreement in cases of refusal or failure to abide by its terms. 40 More so in this case where spouses Carlos opted to move for the dismissal only after they have decided to convey the subject properties to their children for personal reasons, and then later claimed that they wanted to dismiss the case for "lack of interest and hostility to further prosecute the case" and that they no longer desire to push through with the amicable settlement. 41
Clearly, the real reason behind the petitioners' insistence to invalidate the JDR proceedings and the compromise agreement is grounded not on lack of jurisdiction or the validity of the JDR process, but rather on the perceived failure on the part of the respondents in complying with the terms of the agreement. While a motion to dismiss is not the proper remedy in cases such as this, the law, however, provides remedies for the complying parties in case the other party to the compromise agreement fails to abide by its terms, such as a motion for execution of judgment 42 or an action for indirect contempt. 43
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision dated July 7, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 03635-MIN and its Resolution dated October 10, 2016 denying the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 38-52; penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño.
2.Id. at 52.
3.Id. at 57-58.
4.Id. at 59-60.
5.Id. at 39.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 70, 61-64.
8. Also "Barcilo" in the records.
9.Rollo, p. 39.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 40.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 40-41.
16.Id. at 41.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 41-42.
19.Id. at 42-43.
20.Id. at 43.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 66-67; penned by Judge Virginia D. Tehano-Ang.
23.Id.
24.Id.
25.Id. at 44.
26.Id.
27.Id.
28.Id.
29.Id.
30.Id.
31.Id. at 46.
32.Id. at 54-55.
33.Id. at 21.
34. G.R. No. 205623, August 10, 2016.
35.Id.
36.Id.
37.Id. at 49-50.
38.Id. at 51-52.
39.Id. at 45-46.
40.Gadrinab v. Salamanca, et al., 736 Phil. 279, 295-296 (2024).
41.Rollo, p. 43.
42. RULES OF COURT, Rule 39.
43.Id., Rule 71.