Title
Agton vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-37309
Decision Date
Mar 30, 1982
Santiago Angayao sued Ramon Agton for failing to deliver 3 hectares of land per a prior settlement. Courts ruled in Angayao's favor, affirming Agton's obligation and rejecting res judicata claims.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37309)

Facts:

Background of the Case

  • Santiago Angayao filed a complaint for recovery of real property and damages against Ramon Agton in the Court of First Instance of Davao on April 5, 1968. The land in question is a 3-hectare portion of Lot 184 of the cadastral survey of Davao, located in Toril, Davao City.

Previous Litigation

  • Prior to this case, a civil case (Civil Case No. 726) was filed in 1951 on behalf of Santiago Angayao (then a minor) against Ramon Agton and others for the recovery of possession of real property. The case involved Lot No. 786, Cadastral 102 of Davao City.
  • An amicable settlement was reached, wherein Ramon Agton agreed to deliver 3 hectares of land to Santiago Angayao as full settlement of his claim.

Dispute Over the Land

  • Ramon Agton pointed out a parcel of land in Toril, Davao, as the land to be delivered under the amicable settlement. However, he repeatedly delayed the delivery, promising to transfer the land once Santiago Angayao reached the age of majority.
  • Despite repeated demands, Ramon Agton failed to deliver the land, prompting Santiago Angayao to file the present case.

Trial Court Decision

  • The trial court ruled in favor of Santiago Angayao, ordering Ramon Agton to deliver the 3-hectare portion of the land described in the complaint and to pay attorney’s fees.

Court of Appeals Decision

  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that the land promised to be delivered was the one described in paragraph 8 of the complaint, and that Ramon Agton had failed to fulfill his obligation.

Issue:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Ramon Agton did not specifically deny the material allegations in Santiago Angayao’s complaint, thereby admitting them.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision, despite the alleged absence of evidence supporting Santiago Angayao’s claim and the existence of a final decision in Civil Case No. 726, which Ramon Agton argued constituted res judicata.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.