Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case 44 Gadrinab VS Salamanca
Case 44 Gadrinab VS Salamanca
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
316
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017111911454d5fd30a7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/20
3/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 726
319
LEONEN, J.:
A judgment on compromise agreement is a judgment on
the merits. It has the effect of res judicata, and is
immediately final and executory unless set aside because of
falsity or vices of consent. The doctrine of immutability of
judgments bars courts from modifying decisions that have
already attained finality, even if the purpose of the
modification is to correct errors of fact or law.
This Rule 45 petition seeks the review of the Court of
Appeals’ decision[1] dated July 22, 2010 and its
resolution[2] dated November 19, 2010. The Court of
Appeals dismissed petitioner’s appeal and affirmed the
Regional Trial Court’s decision granting respondent
Salamanca’s motion for physical partition pending the
execution of a judgment on compromise agreement between
the parties.
Respondents, together with Adoracion Gadrinab and
Arsenia Talao, are siblings and heirs of the late Spouses
Talao, Nicolas and Aurelia.[3] The Spouses Talao died
intestate, leaving a parcel of land in Sta. Ana, Manila.[4]
The five Talao children divided the property among
themselves through an extrajudicial settlement.[5]
Subsequently, Arsenia Talao waived her share over the
property in favor of her siblings.[6]
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017111911454d5fd30a7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/20
3/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 726
[1] Rollo, pp. 31-42. This decision was penned by Associate Justice Noel
G. Tijam, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Danton Q.
Bueser, concurring.
[2] Id., at pp. 43-45. This resolution was penned by Associate Justice
Noel G. Tijam, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and
Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
[3] Id., at p. 32.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
320
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017111911454d5fd30a7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/20
3/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 726
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id., at p. 33.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
321
_______________
[12] Id., at pp. 33-34. The text of the compromise agreement reproduced
above is based on the Court of Appeals’ decision.
[13] Id., at p. 34.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017111911454d5fd30a7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/20
3/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 726
322
_______________
[19] Id., at p. 35.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] Id., at pp. 35-36.
[28] Id., at p. 36.
[29] Id., at p. 37.
[30] Id., at pp. 37-38.
323
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017111911454d5fd30a7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/20
3/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 726
_______________
[31] Id., at pp. 31-42.
[32] Id., at p. 39.
[33] Id.
[34] Id., at p. 40.
[35] Id., at pp. 43-45.
[36] Id., at pp. 15-16.
[37] Id.
324
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017111911454d5fd30a7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/20
3/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 726
_______________
[38] Id., at pp. 19-20.
[39] Id.
[40] Id., at p. 20.
[41] Id.
[42] Id.
[43] Id., at p. 23.
325
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017111911454d5fd30a7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/20
3/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 726
_______________
[44] Id., at pp. 23-24.
[45] Id., at pp. 72 and 109.
[46] Id., at p. 75.
[47] Id., at pp. 76 and 108.
[48] Id., at p. 108.
[49] Id., at p. 75.
[50] Id., at p. 76.
[51] Id., at p. 109.
326
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017111911454d5fd30a7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/20
3/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 726
Article 2037. A compromise has upon the parties the effect and
authority of res judicata; but there shall be no execution except in
compliance with a judicial compromise.
_______________
[52] Spouses Romero v. Tan, 468 Phil. 224, 240; 424 SCRA 108, 123
(2004) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
[53] 468 Phil. 224; 424 SCRA 108 (2004) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second
Division].
327
_______________
[54] Id., at p. 240; See also Aromin v. Floresca, 528 Phil. 1165, 1186; 496 SCRA
785, 805 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division].
[55] See Heirs of Enrique Diaz v. Virata, 529 Phil. 799, 823-824; 498 SCRA 141,
165-166 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division].
[56] See also Facura v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166495, February 16, 2011,
643 SCRA 427, 458-460 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
[57] Id.
328
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017111911454d5fd30a7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/20
3/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 726
_______________
[58] Id.
[59] Id.
[60] G.R. No. 161282, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 50 [Per J. Mendoza, Second
Division].
329
_______________
[61] Id., at p. 56.
[62] Id.
[63] See Guiang v. Kintanar, 193 Phil. 251, 288-289; 106 SCRA 49, 89 (1981)
[Per J. Barredo, Second Division].
330
_______________
[64] See Cachopero v. Celestial, G.R. No. 146754, March 21, 2012, 668
SCRA 619, 635 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
[65] Id.
331
_______________
[66] Id., at p. 632, citing Philippine National Oil Company-Energy
Development Corporation (PNOC-EDC) v. Abella, 489 Phil. 515; 448 SCRA
549 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division].
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017111911454d5fd30a7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/20
3/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 726
[67] See Viesca v. Gilinsky, 553 Phil. 498, 522-523; 526 SCRA 533, 557
(2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]; Domingo Realty, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 542 Phil. 39, 65-66; 513 SCRA 40, 67 (2007) [Per J. Velasco, Jr.,
Second Division]; Aromin v. Floresca, 528 Phil. 1165, 1190; 496 SCRA 785,
810 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division].
[68] Supra note 64 at p. 632 citing Air Transportation Office v. Gopuco,
Jr., 501 Phil. 228, 239; 462 SCRA 544, 555 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario,
Second Division].
332
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017111911454d5fd30a7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/20
3/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 726
_______________
[69] Domingo Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 67 at p. 67.
[70] Id.
333
_______________
[71] Id., at pp. 55-56.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017111911454d5fd30a7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/20
3/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 726
334
_______________
** Designated as acting member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May
22, 2014 in view of the vacancy in the Third Division.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017111911454d5fd30a7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/20
3/25/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 726
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017111911454d5fd30a7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/20