Title
IN RE: Tuazon de Perez
Case
G.R. No. L-28114
Decision Date
Oct 30, 1970
Petitioner sought partial execution of a compromise agreement to reclaim properties sold to a third party; Supreme Court ruled the agreement binding only on parties, not third parties, and affirmed lack of jurisdiction over ownership disputes.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-28114)

Background of the Case

The lower court's orders dated April 17, 1967, and May 29, 1967, were appeals regarding a second motion for partial execution filed by Antonio M. Perez. This motion sought to compel Monserrat Enterprises Co., Inc. to surrender five certificates of title for properties located in Manila, based on a compromise agreement, originally executed in 1958, which was supposed to settle prior controversies regarding Angela's guardianship.

Procedural History

The original guardianship proceedings regarding Angela were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. An appellate court later affirmed this dismissal. Subsequently, in November 1966, the compromise agreement was resubmitted and approved by the court, wherein Angela confirmed the transfer of properties to her husband, raising issues of legal effects and the appropriate jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional Issues

The domestic court ruled itself without jurisdiction in denying Perez's motion for partial execution, stating it could not adjudicate disputes involving third parties like Monserrat. The court emphasized that it could not resolve the conflict of ownership asserted by Monserrat over the properties, as it pertained to a guardianship proceeding, highlighting that ownership rights had to be resolved in a separate civil action.

Events Surrounding the Properties

Angela had sold properties to Monserrat before the endorsement of the compromise agreement. Thus, the deeds of sale by Angela, executed in October 1957 but registered only later, necessitated examination as to whether ownership was established prior to the execution of the compromise agreement. The domestic court clarified that unless Angela possessed the rights to the properties at the time of the cession, the compromise would not retroactively affect Monserrat's titles.

Legal Analysis of the Compromise Agreement

The court analyzed the nature of the compromise agreement, asserting that any purported transfer of properties could not retroactively apply, especially since the initial conflict over ownership arose before the agreement and its later confirmation. The stipulation within the compromise could only be effective as of its confirmation in 1966, thus precluding its merit in establishing claims over properties previously sold to Monserrat.

Monserrat's Title Claims

Monserrat, asserting prior ownership based on Angela’s initial sales, maintained its right to the properties. The court underscored that the various third-party purchasers, who obtained clean titles post

...continue reading

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