FELIX LACSON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FELINA T. LOZADA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ANTONIO T. LOZADA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Antonio T. Lozada and his wife obtained on July 12, 1950 from Felix
Lacson a loan in the amount of P4,800.00, payable in one year, with
interest of 12% per annum, secured by a mortgage on a lot situated in,
Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, which however was not recorded in
accordance with law.

The spouses Lozada having failed to pay the loan as agreed upon,
Lacson impleaded them before the court of first instance of said
province to collect the loan. The spouses filed their answer including
a counterclaim, to which plaintiff filed a reply.

When the case was called for hearing, defendants’ counsel informed
the court that he was introducing as evidence a deposition of his
client Lozada wherein he made an acknowledgment of the loan at which
juncture plaintiff made the following manifestation: “that although the
account of the defendants is more than P4,500.00, plaintiff is willing
to accept P3,800.00 as their debt, as admitted by defendants in the
deposition of Atty. Lozada, in order to terminate the case once and for
all and in order to avoid unnecessary litigation, considering
plaintiff’s 81 years of age and infirmity.” Whereupon, the court
suggested to the parties the advisibility of submitting a stipulation
of facts. The parties readily obliged and forthwith submitted the
desired stipulation. And on the basis of stipulation, the court a quo
rendered judgment ordering defendants to pay plaintiff, jointly and
severally, the sum of P3,800.00, without pronouncement as to costs.

Since the judgment does not contain any provision with regard to
defendants’ counterclaim, the latter filed a motion for
reconsideration, but in view of plaintiff’s opposition, it was denied.
Hence the present appeal.

The stipulation of facts submitted by the parties reads as follows:

“AGREED STIPULATION OF FACTS

“Come
now the defendants and the plaintiff, through their respective
undersigned attorneys, and to this Hon. Court respectfully submit’the
following agreed statement of facts:

“1. That the
defendants, particularly Atty. Antonio T. Lozada, in his deposition
taken before Notary Public Regina C. Ordonez of Manila, dated May 23,
1959, on page 6 thereof, admitted that they are indebted to the
plaintiff, in the sum of P3,800 after deducting the payment of P700
already made by them, which statement appears on page 6 of his
deposition, viz:

“Q. “What is the balance of your account with the plaintiff?.

“A. After deducting the payment of P700.00, our account with the plaintiff is only P3,800.00.

“That
the plaintiff although he claims that the account of the defendants due
him is P4,800.00 which was later reduced by him (plaintiff) to
P4,500.00, is now willing to accept the amount of P3,800 as admitted by
the defendants as their indebtedness to the plaintiff in order to
terminate this ease once and for all and in order’ to avoid unnecessary
and costly litigation, and further considering his 81 years of age, and
infirmity.

“Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that
judgment be rendered strictly in accordance with the agreed stipulation
of facts, without special pronouncement as to costs,”

As may be noted, the above stipulation was submitted in view of the
readiness of the defendants to acknowledge their indebtedness as
manifested in the deposition made by defendant Antonio T. Lozada, as
well as the willingness of the plaintiff to terminate the case once and
for all to avoid unnecessary litigation considering his advanced age ,
and his infirmity. Thus, in one of the paragraphs of the stipulation it
appears that plaintiff agreed to accept a lesser amount than what in
his opinion was owed to him by defendants “in order to terminate this
case once and for all and in order to avoid unnecessary and costly
litigation, and further considering his 81 years of age and infirmity.”
In said stipulation it was also prayed that judgment be rendered strictly in accordance therewith. There is nothing stated therein
relative to the counterclaim interposed by defendants, nor have the
latter made therein any reservation relative thereto.

There is, therefore, no basis for appellants’ contention that the court a quo
erred in denying their motion to have the case reopened so that they
may have an opportunity to prove their counterclaim considering that
the stipulation of facts was prepared and submitted to the court
precisely to put an end to the litigation. Surely, if appellants really
wanted to press their counterclaim despite the submission of said
stipulation, why is it that they have not made therein a reservation to
that effect? The fact is that they agreed to submit that stipulation
because of their desire to put an end to the litigation and to obviate
the necessity of submitting further evidence. This is especially so
considering the nature of appellants’ counterclaim which merely
consists in an alleged harassment consequent upon the filing of the
present action. But there is no such harassment for under the facts of
record the institution of the action was justified.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Bengzon, C. J., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.