SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 140276. February 9, 2000]
FELICIDAD
CALLA, FELICIDAD JAVINES, ROSARIO FERNANDO, BENNY CAÑAVERAL, GLORIA JAVINEZ,
CARMEN GUERRERO, CARMENCITA BAMBA, BENJAMIN JAVINEZ, TERESITA CASTILLO,
DIONISIO BUENO, AND GREGORIO GALOS, petitioners, vs. ARTURO MAGLALANG, respondent. Esmso
D E C I S I O N
DE LEON, JR., J.:
On November 8, 1999, petitioners filed a
Petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court assailing the decision[1] of the Court of Appeals[2] dated July 26, 1999, which affirmed the decisions of
the Regional Trial Court[3] and the Metropolitan Trial Court[4] ejecting petitioners from respondent’s property.
The instant petition contains the following
factual antecedents:
"The subject
matters of the legal squabble are the residential units located at No. 102
Katipunan Street, Second Avenue, Caloocan City, which have been occupied and
still being occupied by the petitioners for the past thirty (30) years or more.
Through the years, petitioners’ occupancy and possession of their respective
residential units were continuous, public, uninterrupted and in the concept of
an owners pursuant to the agreement, albeit verbal, they had with Felipe
Maglalang that their monthly payments shall be treated and considered as
installment payments for the purchase of said units. In fact, the
relinquishment of its possession to the herein petitioners by Felipe Maglalang
was unconditional and with full intention to convey its ownership upon full
payment of the purchase price. Msesm
"When Felipe
Maglalang died in 1982, herein petitioners continued to pay their monthly
installments to the herein respondent, being one of the successors-in-interest
of the late Felipe Maglalang.
"The heirs of
the late Felipe Maglalang who knew of such agreement never question (sic) nor
contest (sic) the same and instead, vowed to respect the same. Thus, on the
basis of such commitment, herein petitioners introduced major improvements on
the subject premises amounting to several thousands of pesos. Due to their long
period of occupancy, almost every part of their unit have (sic) been replaced
not to mention the additional improvements now found therein.
"What used to
be a peaceful possession for more or less three (3) decades was unnecessarily
disturbed when prior to December 1990 a certain Dina Arizala (the same alleged
representative of the respondent) informed the herein petitioners that as
vendee of the subject premises pursuant to the Deed of Sale dated December 27,
1990, they were advised (sic) to vacate the premises on the puerile, nay,
self-defeating justification of repairs apart from the absurd request for
petitioners to pay arrearages to her since October 1990 or three (3) months
before the alleged sale was executed. When petitioners refused to heed the call
of Dina Arizala, a suit for ejectment was instituted against the same
petitioners before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City entitled ‘Dina
Arizala and her husband versus Benny Cañaveral, et al.’ and docketed as Civil
Cases Nos. 199985 to 199996. After due notice and hearing, the same
Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 52, rendered a decision dated
September 30, 1991 in favor of Arizala and adversed to herein petitioners. On
appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 120, rendered a
decision dated January 7, 1992 which reversed and set aside the appealed
decision. xxx xxx xxx
"Said
decision by the Regional Trial Court thereafter became final.
x x x x x x x
x xExsm
"Sometime in
September 1995, herein respondent upon the instigation of Dina Arizala filed a
‘Sumbong’ before the Office of the Barangay Chairman of Barangay 38, Zone 4,
Caloocan City. During the conciliation proceedings, respondent admitted having
sold the subject premises to one Dina Arizala who assumes (sic) all the rights
and interest over the subject residential units. For failure of the parties to
come up with an amicable settlement, a Certification To File Action was
allegedly issued.
"On November
28, 1995, eleven (11) complaints for ejectment were filed allegedly by the
respondent represented by Dina Arizala against each of the herein petitioners
before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City and thereafter raffled to
Branch 51 thereof. Except for the names, amount of rentals and arrearages, said
eleven (11) complaints are practically the same in its material allegations.
These complaints were docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 22429 to 22439 entitled
‘Arturo Maglalang represented by his Attorney-in-fact, Dina Arizala vs.
Felicidad Calla, et al.’ xxx xxx xxx
"Each of the
petitioners filed their respective Answer with Counterclaim, which are of
identical defenses and counterclaims. xxx xxx xxx
"In the
preliminary conferences that ensued, respondent failed to appear, although Dina
Arizala who professed to be the respondent’s attorney-in-fact, appeared.
x x x x x x x
x xKyle
"Not
convinced with the verdict, herein petitioners on September 19, 1996 filed a
notice of appeal after payment of the required fees. To stay execution, a
supersedeas bond was posted and the petitioners religiously made a periodic
deposits with the court of the alleged rental fees. xxx xxx xxx The appealed
cases were docketed anew as Civil Cases Nos. C-17637 to C-17647 before the
Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, branch 124.
x x x x x x x
x x
"Pursuant to
Rule 42 of the Rules, herein petitioners filed on December 9, 1998 a Petition
for Review before the Honorable Court of Appeals and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
49710. xxx xxx xxx
"When the
said petition was denied due course as per the decision of the Honorable Court
of appeals dated July 26, 1999, herein petitioners filed on August 18, 1999 a
Motion for reconsideration dated August 17, 1999. xxx xxx xxx Said motion was
however denied in its Resolution dated October 1, 1999.
"Hence, this
Petition for Review on Certiorari."
On November 29, 1999, this Court required
respondent to file his comment. Kycalr
On the same date, November 29, 1999, the
parties, assisted by their respective counsels, submitted to this Court for its
approval their Compromise Agreement dated November 26, 1999, which reads:
"COMPROMISE
AGREEMENT
"COME NOW
PARTIES, through their respective counsels, and to this Honorable Supreme
Court, most respectfully submit their compromise agreement.
"That for the
amicable settlement of the above entitled case, the PARTIES have finally come
to an agreement and hereby agree on the following:
"In
compliance with the oral agreement made between the herein petitioners and the
respondent’s deceased father during his lifetime, the latter agrees to
relinguish and forever waives all his rights and interests including that of
his siblings over the residential houses/units located at 102 Katipunan Street,
Grace Park, Caloocan City and presently occupied by the petitioners. Calrky
"All their
payments made in the past for more than twenty five (25) years shall be
considered as installment payments and in full satisfaction of the purchase
price thereof;
"Respondent
expressly waives and forever forfeits all of his rights granted pursuant to the
Joint Decision dated August 23, 1996 issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Caloocan City, Branch 51 in Civil Case Nos. 22429 to 22439, Consolidated
Decision dated October 16, 1998 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of
Caloocan City, Branch 124 in Civil Cases Nos. C-17637 to C-17647 and in the
Decision promulgated on July 26, 1999 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
49710;
"Respondent
undertakes not to disturb or interfer with the petitioners’ actual
occupation/possession of the subject residential houses/units.
"That PARTIES
forever waive all their causes of action against each other and consider the
judgment/Resolution/Order to be issued on this Compromise Agreement as final
and executory.
Mesm
"PRAYER
"WHEREFORE,
premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed by both PARTIES that the
foregoing Compromise Agreement be APPROVED.
"Caloocan
City for Manila.
"November 26,
1999.
(SGD.) (SGD.)
"FELICIDAD
CALLA ARTURO MAGLALANG
Petitioner Respondent
Witness by:
(SGD.) (SGD.)
"FELICIDAD
JAVINES GLORIA
MAGLALANG
Petitioner Wife
(SGD.) (SGD.)
"ROSARIO
FERNANDO BENNY
CAÑAVERAL
Petitioner Petitioner
(SGD.) (SGD.)
"GLORIA
JAVINES CARMEN
GUERRERO
Petitioner PetitionerSlx
(SGD.) (SGD.)
"CARMENCITA
BAMBA BENJAMIN
JAVINES
Petitioner Petitioner"
We find the foregoing Compromise Agreement
to be legally acceptable, nothing therein being contrary to law, morals, good
customs and public policy, and the same having been freely and intelligently
executed by and between petitioners and respondent, judicial approval thereof
is in order.
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in accordance with the
Compromise Agreement dated November 26, 1999, and in the parties are enjoined
to abide by its terms and conditions.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza,
Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur. Scslx