G.R. No. 155409 - Maquilan vs. Maquilan

Petitioner Virgilio Maquilan and respondent Dita Maquilan were married and had a son.
The petitioner discovered that the respondent was having an illicit sexual affair, prompting petitioner to file a criminal case of adultery against her and her paramour.
Both the respondent and her paramour were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 1 year and 8 months (minimum prision correccional) to 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days (medium prision correccional).

The respondent, through counsel, filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Dissolution and Liquidation of Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Damages on June 15, 2001, alleging psychological incapacity on the part of the petitioner.
During pre-trial, the spouses entered into a Compromise Agreement as a partial settlement of the conjugal partnership of gains, specifying:

Withdrawal and trust deposit of ₱500,000 for their common child, Neil Maquilan.
Equal division of the remaining bank deposit of ₱1,318,043.36.
Allocation of the store to the plaintiff (respondent) and the bodega to the defendant (petitioner), with compensation for stocks and occupancy rights.
Division of motorcycles—Kawasaki to respondent; Honda Dream to petitioner.
Passenger jeep allotted to respondent with payment to petitioner.
House and lot allotted to the common child.
Settlement was partial, without prejudice to other conjugal properties.

The RTC Branch 3, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley approved the Compromise Agreement through a Judgment on Compromise Agreement dated January 2, 2002 (erroneously dated) and January 11, 2002 (actual date of the agreement).

Petitioner’s Attempts to Repudiate the Agreement and Motion for Reconsideration

Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion on January 15, 2002, seeking repudiation of the agreement and reconsideration of the judgment on grounds that his prior counsel did not properly apprise him of the consequences.
The RTC denied the motion on January 21, 2002, and denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration on February 7, 2002.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the CA under Rule 65, alleging:

RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the validity of the compromise agreement.
The agreement was made during the cooling-off period which should render it invalid.
Denial of petitioner’s motion to repudiate the compromise agreement was unlawful.
Proceedings were conducted without the presence of the Solicitor General or Provincial Prosecutor, rendering them invalid.

Whether a spouse convicted of adultery can share in the conjugal partnership.
Whether a compromise agreement giving the convicted spouse share in conjugal property is valid.
Whether annulment or legal separation judgment is a prerequisite for disqualification of the guilty spouse from conjugal property.
Whether such disqualification amounts to civil interdiction.

Can a spouse convicted of adultery be disqualified from sharing in the conjugal partnership of gains?
Is a compromise agreement valid and legal when entered into by spouses, one of whom was convicted of adultery, that grants the convicted spouse a share in the conjugal property?
Is a judgment of annulment or legal separation a prerequisite for disqualifying a spouse convicted of adultery from sharing in conjugal property?
Does the disqualification of a spouse convicted of adultery from sharing in conjugal property constitute civil interdiction?
Does the absence and participation of the Solicitor General or Provincial Prosecutor in the approval of the compromise agreement invalidate the proceedings or the agreement itself?
Can a party repudiate a compromise agreement on the ground of alleged negligence or lack of understanding of its effects due to counsel’s fault?