Case Digest (G.R. No. 126236)
Facts:
Domingo Realty, Inc. and Ayala Steel Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Antonio M. Acero, G.R. No. 126236, January 26, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Velasco, Jr., J., writing for the Court.On November 15, 1981, Domingo Realty, Inc. filed Civil Case No. 9581‑P in the Pasay City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch CXI, seeking recovery of possession of three parcels in Cupang, Muntinlupa covered by TCT Nos. S‑107639, S‑107640 and S‑107643 (totaling 26,705 sq. m.). Defendant Antonio M. Acero (doing business as A.M. Acero Trading) answered, alleging lease from one David Victorio, and Victorio countered by attacking the validity of Domingo Realty’s titles and asserting long possession.
On December 3, 1987, Domingo Realty (through Mariano Yu), Acero, and Luis Recato Dy executed a written Compromise Agreement whose terms were adopted by the RTC in its December 7, 1987 Decision. The compromise acknowledged Domingo Realty’s ownership, Dy’s defective title, and required Acero to vacate and remove any structures encroaching upon Domingo Realty’s land within 60 days; it also provided for payment of P100,000 to Dy and mutual waivers of claims and attorneys’ fees.
To implement the judgment, Domingo Realty sought and obtained a court order to conduct a re‑survey (January 22, 1988). Acero filed pleadings challenging the compromise and sought alternative surveys; the Bureau of Lands (now DENR Land Management) produced Verification Survey Plan No. VS‑13‑000135 (June 9, 1989) that placed the contested improvements within Domingo Realty’s titles. Acero engaged his own engineer who produced VS‑13‑000185, later rejected by the Bureau and subsequently canceled by the Land Registration Authority (November 24, 1993). The Pasay RTC denied Acero’s Motion to Nullify the Compromise Agreement (December 6, 1991), ordered issuance of a writ of execution (January 15, 1992; reiterated October 6, 1992 after records were lost in a fire), and later issued orders implementing execution (January 12, 1994) and denying reconsideration (February 1, 1994).
Acero then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 33407). On October 31, 1995 the Court of Appeals granted certiorari, set aside the RTC orders and the December 7, 1987 Compromise Judgment, and directed the RTC to proceed on the merits as to ownership among the litigants. The CA reasoned among other things that Victorio (the alleged lessor) was not a signatory to the compromise and that the agreement was vague for failing to specify a mutually agreed surveyor. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, denied August 28, 1996.
Petitio...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was Acero’s petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals filed out of time or otherwise barred by laches such that certiorari was an improper remedy?
- Does the non‑inclusion of David Victorio among the signatories of the Compromise Agreement invalidate the compromise judgment?
- Was the Compromise Agreement void for vagueness because it did not fix the exact metes and bounds of the encroachment?
- May the compromise judgment be set aside on ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)