Title
Arroyo vs. Berwin
Case
G.R. No. 10551
Decision Date
Mar 3, 1917
Arroyo and Berwin's agreement to dismiss a theft case in exchange for land ownership recognition was deemed invalid as it violated public policy and undermined justice.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 10551)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Plaintiff and Appellant: Ignacio Arroyo, a resident of Iloilo, Philippines.
    • Defendant and Appellee: Alfred Berwin, a procurador judicial (legal representative) in the law office of Attorney John Bordman, authorized to practice in justice of the peace courts in Iloilo.
  2. Background of the Case:

    • The defendant, Berwin, represented Marcela Juaneza in a theft case filed by Arroyo in the justice of the peace court of Iloilo. The case was decided against Juaneza, who appealed to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.
  3. The Alleged Agreement:

    • On August 14, 1914, Berwin requested Arroyo to dismiss the criminal proceedings against Juaneza.
    • On August 17, 1914, Berwin and Arroyo entered into a stipulation in the presence of Roque Samson. The terms included:
      • Juaneza would recognize Arroyo’s ownership of a parcel of land in Molo, Iloilo, where the stolen cane was cut.
      • Juaneza would not oppose Arroyo’s application for a Torrens title to the land.
      • In exchange, Arroyo would request the prosecuting attorney to dismiss the theft case against Juaneza and Alejandro Castro.
  4. Plaintiff’s Compliance and Defendant’s Breach:

    • Arroyo complied with the agreement by requesting the dismissal of the criminal case, which was granted.
    • Berwin failed to fulfill his part of the agreement, as Juaneza did not sign the document recognizing Arroyo’s ownership of the land.
  5. Plaintiff’s Prayer:

    • Arroyo sought a court order compelling Berwin to ensure Juaneza’s compliance with the agreement and to award him costs and other relief.

Issue:

  1. Whether the agreement between Arroyo and Berwin, which involved the dismissal of a criminal case in exchange for recognition of land ownership, is valid and enforceable.
  2. Whether the consideration for the agreement is lawful or contrary to public policy.

Ruling:

The trial court dismissed Arroyo’s complaint, and the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The agreement was deemed invalid because its consideration was contrary to public policy and the due administration of justice.

Ratio:

  1. Public Policy and Criminal Prosecution:

    • Agreements to stifle criminal prosecutions for pecuniary or other valuable considerations are contrary to public policy.
    • The public interest requires that criminals be prosecuted, and criminal proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the law.
  2. Illicit Consideration:

    • Under Article 1255 of the Civil Code, contracts must not contravene law, morals, or public order.
    • Article 1275 states that contracts with illicit consideration have no effect.
    • The consideration in this case (dismissal of a criminal case in exchange for recognition of land ownership) is illicit because it undermines the administration of justice.
  3. Enforceability of the Agreement:

    • The agreement is unenforceable due to its illegal and immoral consideration.
    • The court emphasized that allowing such agreements would result in a perversion of justice.


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.