Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-30559 October 28, 1977

FRANCISCO PERIQUET, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUDGE ANDRES REYES, Court of First Instance of Rizal, FLAVIANA MULI VDA. DE SUAREZ, deceased, represented by ROSARIO VDA. DE SAN PEDRO, ET AL., SUAREZ ESTATE. INC., B. RENE GOMEZ, MARCIAL SUAREZ. EUFROCINA SUAREZ and HEIRS OF MARCELO SUAREZ, represented by TEOFISTA ISAGON, respondents.

Celso B. Jamora for petitioner.

Salonga, Ordoñ;ez, Yap. Africano & Associates for respondent Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez.

Leonardo Z. Javier for other private respondents.


ANTONIO, J.:têñ.£îhqwâ£

Petition for certiorari and injunction with preliminary injunction. The following are the relevant facts:

On. February 29, 1964, in Civil Case No. 7300, 1 the following Compromise Agreement was entered into and submitted to the trial court for approval: ñé+.£ªwph!1

COME NOW the undersigned parties, assisted by their respective counsel, and respectfully move for approval of their Compromise Agreement and states:

1st.—That parcels of land involved in this action, covered by Transfer certificate of Title Nos. 22657 to 22678, inclusive, of the of deeds of Rizal, were purchased and acquired by Maria Suarez (now deceased), Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez, B. Rene Gomez, Marcelo Suarez (now deceased), and Marcial Suarez, all of were incorporators of the Suarez Estate, Inc., as their capital contributions to said corporation, as evidenced by their "Incorporators" Preliminary Agreement (Annex "A" to the complaint), the Deed of Sale with Assumtion of Liabilities (Annex "B" to the complaint);

2nd.—That upon the incorporation of the said Suarez Estate, Inc., on November 21, 1951, the aforesaid parcels of land represented the capital contributions of the five above-named incorporators, notwithstanding the fact that the lots were registered in the name of Maria Suarez:

3rd.—That in the confusion that ensued following the death of Maria Suarez in 1954 and, later, of Marcelo Suarez in 1955, the Suarez Estate Inc. failed to organize formally as required by law and to carry out its corporate purposes:

4th.—That in view of the aforesaid demise of their two principal co- incorporators, the heirs of said deceased as well as the remaining incorporators have agreed, as by these presents they do hereby agree, not to proceed with the formal organization of the Suarez Estate, Inc., and, instead, to return to each of the incorporators their respective contributions consisting of shares in the parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 22657 to 22678, inclusive of the Register of Deeds of Rizal; with the exception of the following parcels which, during the lifetime of the deceased Maria Suarez and Marcelo Suarez, were already sold to the persons enumerated hereunder, to wit: ñé+.£ªwph!1

'(a) Lot 1, Block 369, under TCT No. 22657 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal in favor of Marcelo Suarez;

(b) Lot 8, Block 369, under TCT No. 22664 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, in favor of Juan Francisco and Aquilino Cruz;

(c) Lot 9, Block 369, under TCT No. 22665 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, in favor of the spouses B, Rene Gomez and Trinidad Suarez-Gomez,

(d) Lot 2, Block 370, under TCT No. 22667 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, in favor of Buenaventura Bernabe;

(e) Lot 4, Block 370, under TCT No. 22668 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, in favor of Juan Cuadrado;

(f) Lot 6, Block 370, under TCT No. 22671 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, in favor of Ciriaco Montano; and

(g) Lot 5, Block 370, covered by TCT No. 22670 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, in favor of the spouses B. Rene Gomez and Trinidad Suarez-Gomez, to whom a new transfer certificate of title for said lot should be issued; but said spouses-vendee shall, in addition to the sum of Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P 14,000.00) already paid, by them as purchase price of this lot, pay to their co-incorporators as well as the heirs of the deceased co-incorporators the following amounts: 'ñé+.£ªwph!1

(a) To FLAVIANA MULI VDA. DE SUAREZ, the sum of P3,333.33;

(b) to FRANCISCO PERIQUET, as surviving spouse of Maria Suarez, the sum of P3,666.67; and

(c) To MARIA SUAREZ and the HEIRS OF MARCELO SUAREZ, B. RENE GOMEZ, and the HEIRS OF INCORPORATOR — CONTRIBUTOR MARCELO SUAREZ, thirty per cent (30%)

5th. — That the remaining lots involved in this action namely, those describe in and covered in by the Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 22658, 22659, 22660, 22661, 22662, 22666, 22668, 22672, 22673, 22674, 22675, 22676, and 22677 and 22678, all of the Register deeds of Rizal, are hereby returned to, and henceforth shall in the meantime be owned on common by, the followign incorporators and the heirs of the deceased incorporators, the same, or the proceeds of thereof if sold, to be partitioned among themselves in the following proportions;

(a) To FLAVINIANA MULI VDA. DE SUAREZ, as incorporator-contributor, thirty-three and one-third percent (33-1/3%);

(b) To the surviving spouse of incorporator-contributor Maria-Suarez, FRANCISCO-PERIQUET, thirty-six and two-thirds percent (36-2/3%); and

(c) To incorporators-contributors MARIA SUAREZ, B. RENE GOMEZ, and the HEIRS OF INCORPORATOR-CONTRIBUTOR MARCELO SUAREZ, thirty percent (30%)

6th. — That it is hereby agreed by all the parties in Civil Case No. 7300 of this court, Branch VI, for the purpose of this compromise agreement that the remaining Mandaluyong Subdivision lots, which are still in the name of the deceased MARIA SUAREZ, do not form part of her estate, for they actually belong to and are owned by the incorporators of the Suarez Estate, Inc., as their capital contribution to the corporation which consists of the following:

GROUP I — Block 369, consisting of five (5) lots, to wit:

 

Area in Sq. M.

Appraised at:

Total

1) Lot No. 3,

1063.00 sq. m.

P45.00

P47,835.00

2) Lot No. 4,

1158.00 sq. m.

P45.00

P52,110.00

3) Lot No. 5,

11568.00 sq. m.

P45.00

P68,040.00

4) Lot No. 6,

1219.00 sq. m.

P60.00

P73.140.00

5) Lot No. 7,

1052.00 sq. m.

P60.00

P63,120.00

 

6060.00 sq. m.

 

P304,245.00

(Note: Lot No. 2, Block No. 369, will be further investigated by the parties and if sold, its value shall be partitioned in the same proportions established in par. 5 hereof.)

GROUP II - Block No. 404 consisting of three (3) lots, to wit:

1) Lot No. 1,

1703.00 sq. m.

P60.00

P102,180.00

2) Lot No. 2,

1653.00 sq. m. 60.00

99,180.00

 

3) Lot No. 3,

1593.00 sq. m.

70.00

111,510.00

 

4949.00 sq. m.

 

P312,870.00

GROUP III - Block No. 370 consisting of five (5) lots, to wit:

1) Lot No. 1,

1833.00 sq. m.

P45.00

P 82,575.00

 

2) Lot No. 3,

1012,00 sq. m.

45.00

45,540.00

 

3) Lot

No. 7,

1060.00 sq. m.

45.00

47,700.00

4) Lot

No. 8,

1426.00 sq. m.

45.00

64,170.00

5 Lot No. 9,

1426.00 sq. m

45.00

71,280.00

 

 

1584.00 sq. m.

 

 

 

 

6917.00 sq. m.

 

P311,265.00

 

7th.—That it has been agreed by the parties herein that the three (3) groups of incorporators and heirs of the deceased incorporators shall draw by lots from the three (3) groups of lots listed in paragraph 6th of this compromise agreement and from the result of the drawing, inasmuch as the values of the groups of lots vary, hence, the share of FLANIANA MULI VDA. DE SUAREZ of 33-1/3% and that of FRANCISCO PERIQUET, of thirty-six and two-thirds (36-2/3%) shall be maintained and completed either in cash or in kind. But, if the " sole property or if all the lots in the three (3) groups are sold at the same time the sharing of the selling price shall be maintained in the same proportions as stated in paragraph 5th of this agreement;

8th.—That any other property or sums of money that may be found to belong or pertain to the defunct Suarez Estate, Inc. or t its incorporators-contributors, as such, shall also be owned by, and divided among, the parties named in paragraph 5th of this agreement in the same proportions.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered approving the foregoing compromise agreement, ordering compliance therewith, and directing, the Register of Deeds of Rizal to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. 22670 and to issue in its stead a new transfer certificate of title in the name of the spouses B. Rene Gomez and Trinidad Suarez-Gomez, and cancel also the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title of the lots in the three (3) groups of lots and issue the corresponding title to whoever the same may belong as a result of this compromise.

Manila, for Pasig, Rizal this 29th day of February, 1964. ñé+.£ªwph!1

(SGD.) FRANCISCO PERIQUETñé+.£ªwph!1

Defendant

Assisted by :

CELSO B. JAMORA

Counsel for F. Periquet

1410 Taft Avenue, Manila

By:

SGD.) CELSO B. JAMORA

(SGD.) FLAVIANA M. VDA. DE SUAREZ

defendant

Assisted by:

(SGD.) MARCIANO C. SICAT

Salonga, Ordonez, Sicat & Ass.

300 Shurdut Bldg. Intramuros

Manila

Counsel for F. M. Vela De Suarez

(SGD.) B. RENE GOMEZ (SGD.) EVELYN I. SUAREZ

Plaintiff Plaintiff

('SGD.) EUFROSINA I. SUAREZ (SGD.) ELPIDIO I. SUAREZ

Plaintiff Plaintiff

(SGD.) VIARCIAL SUAREZ

Plaintiff

(SGD.) TEOFISTA ISAGON

in her own behalf as

plaintiff and as a legal

guardian of Danilo Marcelo Jr., Evelyn & Regino,

all surnamed Suarez,,plaintiffs ñé+.£ªwph!1

Assisted by:ñé+.£ªwph!1

(SGD.) AGUSTIN O. BENITEZ

Suite 712, Don Santiago Building

Taft Avenue, Manila

Counsel for the Plaintiffs 2

The foregoing agreement was approved by the trial court on March 9, 1964, when it rendered a decision stating, in part, as follows:ñé+.£ªwph!1

The foregoing compromise agreement is signed by all the parties and their respective counsel.

Pursuant to par. 7 of the compromise agreement, the parties on March 7, 1964 drew lots before the Deputy Clerk of Court of this Court to determine which portions of the property in question should go to the parties mentioned in par. 5 of the agreement. As a result of the drawing of lots, reported by the Clerk of the Court and affirmed by the parties and their counsel, Group I of the parcels of land in question consisting of five lots — Lots Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Block 369 — enumerated in par. 6 of the compromise agreement were adjudicated to the parties Marcial Suarez B. Rene Gomez, and the of incorporator-contributor Marcelo Suarez as their share in the properties iii question as incorporators-contributors of the Suarez Estate, Inc.; Group 11 of the parcels of land consisting of three lots-Lots Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Block No. 404 —enumerated in par. 6 of the compromise agreement were adjudicated to the party Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez as her share in the properties in question as incorporator-contributor of the Suarez Estate, Inc.; while Group III of the parcels in question consisting office lots — Lots Nos. 1, 3, 8, and 9 of Block No. 370 — enumerated in Par. 6 of the compromise infere adjudicated cm the share of the deceased incorporator-contributor Maria Suarez as such incorporator-contributor represented in the compromise agreement by her surviving spouse Francisco Periquet.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby renders judgment approving the Compromise Agreement submitted by the parties, as well as the result of the drawing of lots made by the parties before the Clerk of Court. The Register of Deeds of Rizal is directed to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. 22670 of his Registry and to issue, in its stead a new transfer certificate of title in the name of the spouses B. Rene Gomez and Trinidad Suarez-Gomez of Pasig, Rizal; to cincel the Transfer Certificates of Title in the name of the deceased Marii Suarez covering Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Block No. 369 of the S LildiNision plan Psd-9027, Mandaluyong, Rizal and issue new transfer certificates of title thereto in the names of Marcial Suarez, B. Rene Gomez, and the Heirs of Marcelo Suarez, namely Teofista Isagoii Eufrosina Suarez, Elpidio Suarez, Danilo Suarez, Evelyn Stitiez Marcelo Suarez, Jr. and Reggineo Suarez, all of Pasig, Rizal; to cancel the Transfer Certificates of Title in the name of the deceased Maria Suarez, covering Lots Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Block No. 404, Subdivision plan Psd-9027 of Mandaluyong, Rizal, and issue new I certificates of title thereto in the name of Flaviana Muli Vda. Suarez of Pasig, Rizal; and to cancel the Transfer Certificates of Title in the name of the deceased Maria Suarez covering Lots Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8 and 9 of Block No. 370 of subdivision plan Psd-9027 of Mandaluyong, Rizal and issue new transfer certificates of title thereto in the name of Francisco Periquet, widower, of Quezon City, as surviving spouse of the deceased Maria Suarez. (Emphasis supplied.) 3

On April 11, 1964, herein petitioner Francisco Periquet filed a motion to set aside the Compromise Agreement and the decision thereon, and prayed for a new trial, alleging that he signed the agreement on the mistaken belief that the portion equivalent to 362/3% of the properties of the Suarez Estate, Inc. was being alloted to him in f asonal capacity, not as representative of his wife. This motion was denied on May 29, 1964. Petitioner's appeal from said Order was disallowed by respondent Court, and a motion for reconsideration of the Order of disallowance was denied, Petitioner came to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for mandamus and certiorari, 4 to compel respondent Judge to approve, certify and elevate the record on appeal in its Civil Case No. 7300 to this Court. or for declaration of nullity of the Compromise Agreement of the parties which was approved by the respondent Court. Said petition was dismissed by this Court on December 29, 1967, in the following manner: ñé+.£ªwph!1

Generally, a judgement on a compromise agreement is not only without appeal, but is also immediately executory, the reason being that when the parties agree to settle their differences, to end a pending litiration and request the court to render judgment based on their said agreement, there is an implied waiver of their right to appeal from thre decision. The exception to the rule is provided in case a part to the compromise agreement moves to set it aside on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress; in which event, an appeal would exit from the order denying the motion.

The issue here presented, therefore, is whether or not the case at Iar (- onies within the exception to the general rule, that the denial of petitioner's appeal by the lower court amounted to grave abuse of discretion .

To fall within the exception to the general rule, the moving party must allege vitiated consent to the agreement, by reason of fraud, mistake or duress. But not every act that may be considered fraudulent, erroneous s or under duress, can be the basis for annuling a contract. A mistake, specifically, shall invalidate consent only if it itfeis to the substance of the thing which is the object of the contract, or to the condition which has principally moved one or both parties to ntr into the contract (Art. 1331, new Civil Code). In short, the error must be the causal, not merely incidental, factor that induced the complaining party to enter into the agreement.

In the present case, the mistake alluded to by petitioner as having vitiated the voluntariness of his participation in the compromise agreement consisted in the mistaken belief that he would receive the alloted portion in his personal capacity; that the properties would belong to him solely This would contradict the explicit terminology of the 5th paragraph of the agreement, partitioning the remaining unsold lots among the 'incorporators and heirs of the deceased incorporators', and which was drafted by no less than appellant's personal counsel. Considering that from the context of the agreement, it is apparent that it was entered into to determine the properties of the Suarez Estate, Inc. and to fix and deliver the respective shares of the incorporators- contributors, and that it was the wife, Maria Suarez, not the husband Francisco Periquet, who made contribution to the corporation, it cannot really be claimed that the lower court made an alteration of the compromise agreement when it adjudged the 5 lots enumerated in paragraph 6 'as the share of the co-incorporator-contributor Maria Suarez as such incorporator-contributor, represented in the compromise agreement by her surviving spouse Francisco Periquet.' That Periquet originally considered this order as in accord with the agreement of the parties is evidenced by the fact that after the judgment was rendered, he filed two motions seeking for its enforcement or execution. Apparently realizing much later the implication of the phraseology of the agreement, as carried out in the decision of the lower court, he belatedly contested the validity and due execution of said compromise agreement.

But assuming that the effect of the wording of paragraph 5 of the agreement was not anticipated by petitioner when he and his counsel prepared the instrument and prevailed on the other parties to sign it, this is not the kind of mistake that would justify nullification thereof. Miscalculation or misappreciation of its legal import, 'where the party as in this case is assisted by counsel, will not provide basis for setting aside of a compromise agreement on the ground of mistake or error. A compromise, entered into and carried out in good faith, will not be discarded even if there was a mistake of law ofr fact; and in this case the parties have gone to the extent of drawing lots a provided in the seventh (7) paragraph of the compromise agreement (Decision, Court of First Instance, p. 4). The application of the rule to the present case becomes all the more imperative when it is borne in mind that Periquet's proposal would result in depriving his wife's surviving mother, Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez of her hereditary share in this 36-2/3% and vesting all of it upon the husband, contrary to our laws of succession. (Civil code, Art. 997)

"Appellant Periquet adverts to the circumstance that in his proposals previous to the final compromise agreement, he had insisted in being personally assigned a shre in the properties equal to that granted to his mother-in-law, Falviana Muli. We find little relevancy in these proposals. The essence of compromises being mutual concessions by the parties to avoid or end litigation, it is to be expected that neither will be able to maintain his initial demands wholly unaltered. Changes are naturally made in the course of bargaining, and the final agreement rearly condies with the original terms proposes by the either side. Since, as previously remarked, the purpose of the compromise agreement in question, was in its 4th paragraph, 'to the capital of Suarez Estate, Inc., (as expressed in its pargaraph 4) and appellant Periquent was concededly not such an incoporator, while his wife and mother-in-law or justice demand any portion of the distributed properties except as his wife's representative, nor how he could assert error in his not becoming a distributee in his personal capacity.

Periquet's argument that the Philippine Trust, as administrator of his late wife's estate did not sign the compromise, is one that is not available ti gun fir evading the effect of his own consent thereto. If at all, only the Administrator may raise the objection and its prolonged silince is evidentiary of acquiescenece to the compromise.

Appellant's contention being plainly untenable, there would be no point in declaring tht the Court below abused its descretion in refusing to give due course to the appeal. Even if appellant were technically entitled to a mandamus, the net result would merely be further delay in adjucating that his case is devoid of merit.

In view of the conclusion thus reached, there is no need to pass upon the question of the timeliness or untimeliness of the appeal filed by petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.5

The judgment having become final, on April 16, 1968, respondent Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez filed a motion for the execution of the same. On May 8, 1968, respondent Court issued an Order granting the motion, thus:ñé+.£ªwph!1

Acting upon the Motion for Execution, filed by defendant Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez and her guardian Jovito R. Salonga, and finding said motion to be well-taken, the same is hereby GRANTED; as prayed for, let a writ of execution issue ordering the Register of Deeds of Rizal to cancel the Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 22666, 22668, 22672, 22674 and 22673 of his Registry, covering Lots 1, 3, 7, 8 and 9 of Block No. 370, of subdivision plan Psd-9027 of Mandaluyong, Rizal in the name of the deceased Maria Suarez and to issue new ones in the names of Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez and to issue new ones in the names of Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez and Francisco Periguet as co-owners thereof in equal pro-indiviso shares.

SO ORDERED. 6

Alleging that the owner's duplicates of the transfer certificates of title mentioned in the Order are in the possession of defendant (herein petitioner) Periquet, respondent Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez filed a "Motion to Declare Owner's Duplicate of Certificates of Title Null and Void". This was granted on May 10, 1968, and the Register of Deeds was ordered "to cancel the title and issued new ones in the names of Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez and Francisco Periquet as co-owners thereof."

On May 20, 1968, petitioner filed a "Motion to Quas and Execution and the Orders of Trial Court dated May 8 and 10, 1968 Dividing Lots 1, 3, 7, 8 and 9 of Block No. 370, Equally Pro-Indiviso", on the ground that respondent Court has no jurisdiction to order the partition of said lots, as the Probate Court of Rizal, where the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the deceased Maria Suarez was pending, 7 has exclusive venue and jurisdiction over the same. On September 23, 1968, respondent Court denied peitioner's "Motion to Quash Execution, etc.", relying heavily upon the decision of this Court in G.R. No. L-23886.

On June 3, 1969, Francisco Periquet filed the present petition for certiorari, contending that Respondent Judge has no jurisdiction to effect a partition of the share of the dedeased Maria Suarez t from the Suarez Estate m Civil Case No. 7300, as it is the Probate Court in Special Proceedings No. 2169, where the estate of Maria Suarez Periquet is pending which has such in apart from the fact that the challenged Orders of respondent Judge, dated May 8, 1968, May 10, 1968, and September 23, 1968, were null because they amended or modified the final decision in Civil Case No. 7300, which is beyond the authority of said respondent.

In the meantime, respondent Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez died and was substituted in the instant pr by her heirs - Rosario Suarez Vda. de San Pedro, Trinidad Suarez Marcial Suarez, Clarita Suarez Luna, Eufrocina Suarez Andres, Suarez, Danilo Suarez, Evelyn Suarez de Leon, Marcelo Suarez and Regino Suarez.

On May 13, 1974, Francisco Periquet and the above-named heirs of Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez submitted a Joint Motion for the setting forth the said ñé+.£ªwph!1

1. That the parties agree to allot and adjudicate in favor of Francisco Periquet in full and complete settlement of the totality of his rights and interest in the properties of his deceased spouse, M Suarez, the following lots mentioned in the Compromise Agreement of February 29, 1964, paragraph 6 thereof, under Group M, Block No. 370, consisting of four (4) lots, as follows: ñé+.£ªwph!1

Lot No. 3... 1,012.00 sq. meters

Lot No. 7 1,060.00 sq. meters

Lot No. 8... 1,426.00 sq. meters

Lot No. 9... 1,584.00 sq. meters

2. That the parties also agree to allot and adjudicate in favor of Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez, Lot No. 1, consisting of 1,833.00 sq. meters and valued at P82,575.00, covered in paragraph 6 of the Compromise Agreement of February 29, 1964, Group III Block No. 370, in addition to her own share in the aforesaid Compromise Agreement of February 29, 1964, paragraph 6 thereof, Group 11, Block No. 404, consisting of three (3) lots, to wit:

Lot No. 1...... 1,703.00 sq. meters

Lot No. 2....... 1,653.00 sq. meters

Lot No. 3....... 1,593.00 sq. meters

That the undersigned heirs of Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez hereby confirmed the transfer to Jovito R. Salonga, Sedfrey A. Ordonez, Pedro L. Yap, and Marciano C. Sicat of the aforesaid lot No. 3 with an area of 1,593.00 square meters mentioned in the aforesaid Compromise Agreement of February 29, 1964, par. 6 thereof, Group 11, Block No. 404, as payment for their professional services rendered in favor of Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez. 8

It was, therefore, prayed:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, with the approval of the Supplementary Compromise Agreement therein embodied, it is respectfully prayed that this case be decided according to the aforesaid Agreement without costs, and the same be remanded to the lower Court for the implementation of the Compromise Agreement of February 29, 1964, with the corresponding Supplementary Compromise Agreement of the parties herein embodied, and that the moment the decision becomes final, that the lis pendens' annotated on all the Transfer Certificates of Title involved in this case be cancelled. 9

It is apparent from the records of this case, as well as those of G.R. No. L-23886, that the conflict was between Francisco Periquet and his mother-in-law. Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez, now represented by her heirs, both being heirs of the deceased Maria Suarez. The disagreement arose out of the proper division between them of the properties left by the deceased, particularly the five lots enumerated in the first Compromise Agreement. There is no dispute as to the shares of the other parties who were incorporators' contributors in the defunct Suarez Estate, Inc.

The parties involved, namely Francisco Periquet and the heirs of Flaviana Muli Vda. de Suarez. have opted to settle their differences by virtue of the supplemental agreement above set forth. We find no reason for disallowing said agreement, and hereby approve the same, it appearing that the same has been signed by all the parties concerned and their respective counsel. The distributive shares of the other parties. however, are to be governed by the first Compromise Agreement submitted and approved in Civil Case No. 7300.

WHEREFORE, the Supplementary Compromise Agreement is herebyh removed enjoined to comply with the terms thereof. Respondent Court directed to execute the agreements of the parties in the manner afore-mentioned. The writ of preliminary injunction dated August 7, 1969, is hereby dissolved, and the notice of lis pendens annotated on all the transfer certificates of title involved in this case are ordered to be cancelled. Marcial Suarez, Eufrocina Suarez and the heirs of Marcelo Suarez, is hereby dismissed. Without special pronouncemnt as to costs.

Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr. and Santos, JJ., Concur.

Fernando (Chairman), J., is on leave.

 

Footnotesñé+.£ªwph!1

1 Entitled "Suarez Estate, Inc., et al. vs, Phil. Trust Co., Inc. et al., ", filed before respondent Court.

2 Rollo pp. 257-260.

3 Annex "L", Petition, Rollo, pp. 53-55.

4 G. R. No. L-23886, entitled "Francisco Periquet, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Judwe Andres Reyes, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Suarez Estate, Inc., B. Rene Gomez, Marcial Suarez, Eufrocina Suarez, Fia iana Muli Nda de Suarez and Heirs of Marcelo Suarez, Flaviana Muli Vda. le Suarez and Heirs of Marcelo Suarez (Minors Elpidio, Danilo, Eeln Marcelo, Jr. & Regino, all surnamed Suarez), represented by TEOFISTA ISAGON, Respondents.

8 Rollo, pp. 254-255.

9 Ibid., p. 255c
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation