MARIA SHEILA ALMIRA T. VIESCA v.

DAVID GILINSKY
G.R. NO. 171698, July 4, 2007
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Facts:
Petitioner and the Canadian respondent met at the Makati Shangri-La Hotel
where the former worked as a hotel manager. They entered a relationship and
begot a son, Louis Maxwell. Respondent executed an Affidavit of
Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity of the child. Subsequently, the Civil
Registrar of Makati City issued a Certification granting the change of Louis
Maxwell’s surname from “Viesca” to “Gilinsky. Unfortunately, petitioner and
respondent parted ways.
Respondent filed a Petition praying for entitlement to the company of his son
but during the pendency of the petition the parties arrived at a compromise
agreement. Respondent filed an “Urgent Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution”
which alleged that petitioner had repeatedly refused to abide by the terms of the
compromise judgment.
Petitioner insisted that the writ of execution was issued with “indecent haste”
violative of her right to due process, and that the writ varied the terms of the
Compromise Agreement since it failed to take into consideration the parties’
understanding that in the enjoyment of respondent’s visitorial rights, petitioner
“shall have the right to designate any person of suitable age to accompany the
child.”

ISSUE: Can the RTC amend a compromise agreement without the consent of both
parties?

RULING: No.
The courts and quasi-judicial bodies cannot impose upon the parties a
judgment different from their compromise agreement or against the very terms and
conditions of their agreement without contravening the universally established
principle that a contract is the law between the parties. The courts can only approve
the agreement of parties. They cannot make a contract for them.
A compromise agreement that has been made and duly approved by the
court attains the effect and authority of res judicata between the parties and should
not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery which private respondent
does not allege in this case.