Spouses Sherrel v. La Perla Industries, Inc.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 231570. March 21, 2018.]

SPOUSES EVELYN AND KEN SHERREL, petitioners,vs. LA PERLA INDUSTRIES, INC., JOHNSON CHENG, AMY CHENG, JOHNNY C. CHENG, JR., LUCY D.L. CHENG, JOAN D.L.C. TAN, JEAN D.L.C. CHENG, AND JORGE R. PEREZ, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 21, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 231570 (Spouses Evelyn and Ken Sherrel, Petitioners, v. La Perla Industries, Inc., Johnson Cheng, Amy Cheng, Johnny C. Cheng, Jr., Lucy D.L. Cheng, Joan D.L.C. Tan, Jean D.L.C. Cheng, and Jorge R. Perez, Respondents.) — Petitioners Spouses Kenneth 1 and Evelyn Sherrell entered into an Agreement to Purchase with their co-petitioner La Perla Industries, Inc. (La Perla) on two adjoining parcels of land situated in Baguio City for the total amount of P34,330,000.00. They made a down payment of P2,000,000.00, and agreed to pay the balance within 180 days from the execution of the Agreement to Purchase. After they failed to pay, La Perla sent a notice terminating the Agreement to Purchase and forfeiting the down payment. La Perla took possession of the property and found that illegal digging activities were being done thereon by the petitioners. Thus, La Perla sued the petitioners in the Regional Trial Court in Baguio City (RTC) to stop the petitioners from entering the property and from performing illegal activities thereon.

Pending resolution of the case, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement2 wherein La Perla agreed to give petitioners an opportunity to pay the purchase price, and to authorize thetas to obtain a bank loan. They also agreed that upon failure of the petitioners to comply with the conditions they would deliver possession of the property to La Perla, and the latter would return the deposited amount; and that La Perla would be entitled to a writ of execution directing the Register of Deeds of Baguio City to cancel the adverse claim registered by the petitioners on the property. The RTC approved the Compromise Agreement on December 28, 2010. 3

Due to the petitioners' failure to pay, La Perla filed on February 8, 2012 a Motion for Compliance Order to enforce the judgment based on the Compromise Agreement. On March 4, 2013, the petitioners filed their opposition and comment on the Motion for Compliance Order claiming a supervening event, that is, the annotation on June 23, 2010 of an adverse claim by a certain Judith Balabag on the property. They maintained that La Perla had sold the property to Balabag, but La Perla denied the claim and countered that the annotation had been made upon the behest of the petitioners who had introduced Balabag as their joint venture partner who would obtain a loan on their behalf.

The RTC granted the motion on August 29, 2013, observing that it was its ministerial duty to issue the writ of execution to enforce the Compromise Agreement upon the failure of the petitioners to comply with their obligation; that the discovery of the annotation of the adverse claim could not be considered as a supervening event considering that the annotation had been made around six months before the rendition of the judgment approving the Compromise Agreement on December 28, 2010. 4

Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the CA. aScITE

In its decision promulgated on July 18, 2016, 5 the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari for being an inappropriate remedy considering that the orders of the RTC being assailed were not interlocutory as to be proper subjects of a petition for certiorari. It further ruled that it was ministerial to implement and enforce the judgment based on the Compromise Agreement absent any motion to set aside the judgment; that the discovery of the annotation could not be considered a supervening event because no material change occurred thereby; and that the annotation had been done before the execution of the Compromise Agreement.

After their motion for reconsideration was denied, 6 the petitioners now appeal, claiming that the judgment based on the Compromise Agreement could not be enforced for being contrary to law; and that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the judgment based on the Compromise Agreement despite the onset of a supervening event that effectively and materially altered the rights and relations of the parties, rendering the execution of the judgment based on the Compromise Agreement unjust, impossible or inequitable. 7

Ruling of the Court

The appeal lacks merit.

Although the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari of the petitioners for being an inappropriate remedy, it proceeded to address the merits of the petition and to rule thereon by finding that the RTC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in granting La Perla's Motion for Compliance Order. As the CA fittingly observed, it was the ministerial and mandatory duty of the trial judge to implement and enforce the judgment based on the Compromise Agreement. Indeed, the judgment based on the Compromise Agreement was final and immediately executory in the absence of any motion to set aside the judgment. As such, the courts cannot modify or impose terms different from those stipulated in the Compromise Agreement, or to set aside the compromises and reciprocal concessions made in good faith by the parties without gravely abusing their discretion. 8

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the cost of suit. (Leonen, J., on official leave.) HEITAD

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Courts

 

Footnotes

1. Kenneth is an American citizen.

2.Rollo, pp. 169-171.

3.Id. at 176-188.

4.Id. at 107-108; penned by Judge Asuncion F. Mandia.

5.Id. at 34-49; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam (now a Member of the Court) and Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta concurring.

6.Id. at 73-74.

7.Id. at 6-30.

8.Gadrinab v. Salamanca, G.R. No. 194560, June 11, 2014, 726 SCRA 315, 331.