Title
Supreme Court
Spouses Cachopero vs. Celestial
Case
G.R. No. 146754
Decision Date
Mar 21, 2012
Spouses Cachopero refused to fully comply with a compromise agreement to vacate and transfer a house from Celestial's lot, leading to a mandamus petition to enforce the agreement, upheld by the Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 235310)

Factual Background

The conflict originated when Rachel Celestial filed an ejectment case against Jesse and Bema Cachopero in 1989, alleging they had occupied her property without payment since 1973. The spouses claimed they were living there out of tolerance. A Compromise Agreement was subsequently reached on August 10, 1989, outlining terms for the spouses to vacate Celestial's lot and to dismantle and relocate the house. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) approved this agreement by a judgment issued on the same day.

Subsequent Legal Actions

In 1990, despite the agreement, Celestial sought to enforce the demolition of remaining structures on her property, leading to a series of motions and further proceedings in both the MTC and the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The MTC found the spouses had vacated Celestial's property per the agreement, while a portion of the house remained undemolished on Celestial's property. Celestial, dissatisfied with this, filed a mandamus petition, seeking an Alias Writ of Execution to ensure compliance with the agreement.

Regional Trial Court Findings

The RTC ultimately dismissed Celestial's mandamus petition, asserting that the demolition of undemolished structures was not within the issues decided by the MTC, as the house was no longer on Celestial's property. Celestial's appeal to the Court of Appeals sought to challenge this dismissal.

Decision of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Celestial on September 4, 2000, determining that the compromise agreement was executory and held the force of res judicata. The Court underscored that pending issues related to Special Civil Case No. 070, which pertained to the spouses' land application with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, should not affect the execution of the compromise agreement.

Supreme Court Proceedings

The spouses Cachopero appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, questioning the applicability of mandamus to compel the RTC to issue the Alias Writ of Execution and to eject them from the land. They argued that the ejectment would infringe on their rights concerning their application over the land.

Legal Analysis of Mandamus

The Supreme Court expounded on the criteria for issuing a writ of mandamus, emphasizing its role in compelling performance of a duty that is ministerial rather than discretionary. The Court highlighted that Celestial's rights sprung from the Compromise Agreement, rendering it enforceable.

Interpretation of Compromise Agreement

The Court reaffirmed that the compromise agreement constituted a valid contract once approved, h

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.