Title
Camacho vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 79564
Decision Date
Nov 24, 1989
Aurora Camacho files a complaint for forcible entry against Silvestre Tuazon, leading to a dispute over a compromise agreement and the timely filing of a complaint in intervention, ultimately resulting in a finding of estoppel by laches.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 79564)

Facts:

  • Petitioner Aurora B. Camacho filed a complaint for forcible entry against Silvestre Tuazon in the municipal court of Balanga, Bataan.
  • The complaint alleged that Tuazon re-entered a lot that he had previously surrendered, obstructing the construction of a road and depriving the plaintiffs of possession.
  • The municipal court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered Tuazon to vacate the premises.
  • The case was appealed to the Court of First Instance of Bataan.
  • During the trial de novo in the Court of First Instance, Camacho dismissed her counsel, Angelino M. Banzon.
  • Banzon filed a complaint in intervention, claiming attorney's fees and portions of the lot in question based on an alleged contract of attorney's fees between Banzon and Camacho.
  • The trial court approved a compromise agreement between Camacho and Tuazon, resulting in a partial decision.
  • Camacho moved to dismiss the complaint in intervention, arguing that the trial court lost jurisdiction after the approval of the compromise agreement.
  • The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and Camacho filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that the intervention was timely filed and that the judgment on compromise did not result in the dismissal of the intervention....(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The intervention was timely filed during the trial de novo in the Court of First Instance.
  • The judgment on compromise did not fully settle the controversy and the rights of the intervenor, Banzon, were not yet determined.
  • ...continue reading

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.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.