SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226457. March 27, 2019.]
SPOUSES PRUDENCIO T. LACONSAY AND RAIDES O. LACONSAY, petitioners, vs.MA. BULAKLAK ORMASA AND JACINTA BALAJADIA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 March 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226457 — Spouses Prudencio T. Laconsay and Raides O. Laconsay versus Ma. Bulaklak Ormasa and Jacinta Balajadia
After an exhaustive review of the instant Petition and its annexes, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition.
The Court of Appeals, Third Division (CA) did not commit any reversible error in issuing the assailed Decision 1 dated April 20, 2016 and Resolution 2 dated August 15, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 140297 that warrants the Court's exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
As to the petitioners' first submission, jurisprudence holds that if the forum shopping committed is not considered willful and deliberate, it is the subsequent case, and not the prior case, that shall be dismissed without prejudice, on the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata. 3 The petitioners failed to prove that the respondents committed willful and deliberate forum shopping in Civil Case No. 15-134096.
As to the petitioners' second submission, the unsupported allegation of the petitioners that the Compromise Agreement did not reflect the true intention of the parties, based solely on the mere say-so of the petitioners, deserves scant consideration. The petitioners failed to provide any convincing evidence to disprove the fact that the Compromise Agreement was entered voluntarily, willingly, and freely by both parties. In fact, as noted by the CA, the petitioners have actually partially received the benefits of the Compromise Agreement, admittedly receiving a total of P2,200,000.00 from the respondents in accordance with the provisions of the Compromise Agreement.
The Court has consistently ruled that a party to a compromise cannot ask for its rescission after it has enjoyed its benefits. 4 With the Court previously holding that a party who has availed himself of the provisions of a compromise is under estoppel to question its validity, and that in a regime of law and order, repudiation of an agreement validly entered into cannot be made without any ground or reason in law or in fact for such repudiation, 5 the instant Petition must necessarily fall. Entering into a compromise agreement has the effect and authority of res judicata once entered into, even without judicial approval. From that moment of the meeting of the minds of the parties, it becomes binding on them. To be valid, judicial approval is not required. 6 SCaITA
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-22. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez.
2.Id. at 26-27.
3.Chua v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, 613 Phil. 143, 158-159 (2009).
4.Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 297 Phil. 348, 355 (1993).
5.Id. at 354.
6.Republic v. Florendo, 573 Phil. 112, 120 (2008).