ESTRELLA BENIPAYO RODRIGUEZ, MANUEL D. BENIPAYO, DONATO BENIPAYO, JR., JAIME D. BENI­PAYO, MAXIMA BENIPAYO MORA­LES, AURORA BENIPAYO DE LEON, FRANCISCO D. BENIPAYO, ALEJANDRO D.…

The petition for certiorari filed in this case prays for
judgment, inter alia, as follows:

“x
x x       x x x declare the order of the respondent judge
approving the auction sale of the properties in question null and void and,
thereafter, ordering the re-bidding of the properties in question at public
auction or the approval of the sale thereof without any condition such that the
buyers should assume the liability in favor of the Development Bank of the
Philippines;”.

The properties sold at public auction are the ones mentioned in
paragraph 16 of the petition as follows:

“XVI

That on the date scheduled in the Notice of Sale (Annex ‘O’), on
the ground that cir­cumstances then prevailing would not enable them to
actively participate in the auction sale, petitioners moved for the
postponement of the sale, but because of the objection of respondent Benipayo represented by the Ambro­sio
Padilla Law Offices the postponement was denied and the sale continued as
scheduled with Atty. Ambrosio Padilla actively
partici­pating therein allegedly not in behalf of his client, respondent Benipayo, but on behalf of the bidder respondent Jose N. Dualan (herein­after referred to as respondent Dualan for the sake of brevity).  In the said auction sale, respondent Dualan acting through Atty. Ambrosio Padilla successfully bid for Lot No. 6-B-2, Block
No. 2124, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 48979 of the Office of
the Register of Deeds of Manila.  On the
other hand, respondent Vicente Sayson, Jr.
(hereinafter referred to as respondent Sayson, Jr.
for the sake of brevity) successfully bid for the sale to him of Lot No. 6-A of Block No. 2124, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 48978 of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Manila.
Thereafter, the Sheriff of Manila, presented his Return to the res­pondent
judge, copy of which is hereto attached as Annex ‘P’ and made an integral part here­of;“.

It appears that after the respondents, through their respective
counsel, filed their answer to the petition for certiorari, the parties
submitted their respective memo­randum.

On May 8, 1970 the petitioners,
jointly with res­pondents Vicente Sayson and Alberto Benipayo, assisted by their respective counsel, submitted
to this Court the following COMPROMISE AGREEMENT:

“COME NOW the petitioners and the res­pondents Vicente Sayson and Alberto Benipayo,
assisted by their respective undersigned counsel, and hereby respectfully
submit to this Honorable Court the following compromise agreement:

1.  That in consideration of
the return to respondent Vicente Sayson of the amount
he has paid as consideration for the property co­vered by T.C.T. No. 48978 of the Registry of Deeds for the
City of Manila, if is agreed that the auction sale made by the sheriff of
Manila on March 30, 1964 insofar as said pro­perty covered by T.C.T. No. 48978 is concerned, in which auction
sale the said Vicente Sayson was the highest bidder
for said property, be considered cancelled and declared of no further force and
effect.

2.  That as consideration for
the said property sold in the abovementioned public auction, the herein
respondent Sayson has paid to the sheriff of the City
of Manila the sum of One Hundred Seventy Three Thousand Pesos (P173,000.00) which forms
part of the sum of Four Hundred Five Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Four
Pesos (P405,934.00) deposited with the Clerk of the Court of First Instance of
Manila or the City of Treasurer of Manila.

3.  That the herein parties have agreed that
the above-mentioned sum of One Hundred Seventy
Three Thousand Pesos (P173,000.00), shall be ordered
returned to the herein res­pondent
Vicente Sayson.

4.  That with this compromise
agreement, the petition for Certiorari pending before the Honorable Supreme
Court has become academic in­sofar as respondent
Vicente Sayson is concerned, and, therefore, should
be dismissed; and the orders of the Court of First Instance of Manila dated
April 28, 1964 and May 16, 1964, which orders
are the subject matter of the present case
for certiorari, should also be considered vacated
and of no further force and effect in­sofar as said Vicente Sayson is concerned.

WHEREFORE, the herein parties respectfully pray:

(1) That this compromise agreement be approved;

(2) That the Clerk of the Court
of First Instance of Manila and/or the City Treasurer of Manila be ordered to return to respondent Vicente Sayson the amount of P173,000.00
out of the sum of P405,934.00 deposited
by the sheriff of the City of Manila in
connection with the auction sale
of properties covered by T.C.T. Nos. 48978 and 48979 of the Registry of
Deeds for Ma­nila in Civil Case No. 52188 of the Court of first Instance of
Manila;

(3) That the present case for Certio­rari be dismissed insofar as said respondent Vicente Sayson is concerned;

(4) That the orders of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 52188 dated April 28, 1964 and May 16, 1964
be considered vacated and of no further force and effect with respect to
respondent Vicente Sayson, and the auction sale in said case dated March 30, 1964 be also considered cancelled and rescinded insofar as the pro­perty covered by T.C.T. No. 48978 and insofar as said respondent
Vicente Sayson are concerned.”

As the other private respondent,
Dr. Jose N. Dualan, did not appear to have signed the
above Compromise Agree­ment, our resolution of May 19, 1970 required him to com­ment thereon within ten
(10) days from notice.  Pursuant thereto said respondent
submitted on June 5, 1970
his comments paragraph 4 of which reads as follows:

“4.  That respondent Dr. Jose N. Dualan does not have any objection to the approval
of said Compromise Agreement dated May 7,
1970 which involves a
separate and distinct property;”.

WHEREFORE, a partial decision in this case is hereby
rendered approving the above Compromise Agreement and requiring the parties
thereto to comply with the provisions thereof.

This case should be deemed dismissed as against respondent Vicente Sayson
Jr.

Without costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
and Villamor, JJ., concur.