Title
Dungo vs. Lopena
Case
G.R. No. L-18377
Decision Date
Dec 29, 1962
Dungo contested a compromise agreement he didn’t sign, but the Supreme Court upheld its validity, citing ratification and benefits, dismissing his appeal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18377)

Background of Transaction

On September 10, 1959, the petitioner, Anastacio G. Dungo, and Rodrigo S. Gonzales purchased three parcels of land from respondents Adriano Lopena and Rosa Ramos for a total of P269,804.00. A down payment of P28,000.00 was made, with the balance of P241,804.00 to be paid in six monthly installments. To secure this payment, a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was executed by the petitioner and Gonzales in favor of Lopena and Ramos, which was registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. The mortgage stipulated that any default in payments would make the entire unpaid balance due.

Foreclosure Proceedings Initiated

After the vendees defaulted on their first installment, respondents filed a complaint for foreclosure on November 7, 1959. The complaint was countered by Dungo and Gonzales on December 7, 1959. Concurrently, two additional civil cases involving similar claims by Dionisio Lopena and Bernardo Lopena were consolidated with this complaint.

Compromise Agreement Submission

A compromise agreement was prepared on January 15, 1960, signed by Rodolfo S. Gonzales (as a representative of Dungo) and approved by the court, but not signed by Dungo himself. Dungo’s counsel, who signed the compromise, acknowledged his role in the agreement. The agreement included provisions on payment deadlines and waivers.

Tri-Party Agreement Execution

On May 3, 1960, a Tri-Party Agreement was signed involving Dungo, Gonzales, and a third-party payor, Emma R. Santos, who would assume the mortgage obligations. This agreement established a new payment schedule but still referenced the earlier compromise agreement.

Default and Court Actions

After failing to meet the obligations on June 30, 1960, respondents filed a motion for the sale of the mortgaged properties on July 5, 1960. Dungo and Gonzales were notified but did not oppose the motion. Consequently, the court ordered the public auction on July 19, 1960, which resulted in the properties being auctioned on August 25, 1960. The sale was confirmed by the court on August 30, 1960.

Motion to Set Aside Foreclosure Proceedings

Dungo subsequently filed a motion on August 31, 1960, to set aside the foreclosure proceedings, claiming the compromise agreement was void as he did not sign it. This motion was denied by the lower court on December 14, 1960.

Appeal and Legal Issues Raised

Dungo filed a Notice of Appeal against the order of foreclosure and the denial of his motion to set aside. Respondents opposed his appeal, claiming it was not appealable due to the nature of the compromise agreement, which they argued rendered the judgment final. The lower court ultimately dismissed Dungo’s appeal.

Court's Analysis of the Compromise Agreement

The court addressed two key issues: whether the compromise agreement was void concerning Dungo and whether the lower court abused its discretion by dismissing his appeal. Dungo asserted the compromise was invalid due to his non-signature; however, the court found that a compromise is a contract governed by the Civil Code and specified that absence of a signature does not nullify the agreement outright if the party has ratified it.

Ratification Through Tri-Party Agreement

The court determined that Dungo ratified the compromise agreement thro

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.