TAN CHUAN LEONG OR RAMON C. L. TAN PALANCA AND GIL­BERT K. TAN PALANCA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (FOURTH DIVISION) AND METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, …

Within the extended period for petitioners to file a petition for
review of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 6, 1977 in CA-GR. No.
51715-R entitled “Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., Plaintiff-Appellant
vs. Tan Chuan Leong or Ramon C. L. Tan Palanca, Gilbert K. Tan Palanca,
Chen Siy Yuan and B & I Realty Company, Inc.,
Defendants-Appellees,” the dispositive
portion of which provides, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is
hereby, modified by declaring the sale of the property described in Par. 6 of
the complaint, null and void for being simulated and fictitious, and affirmed
in all other respects.  No pronouncement
as to costs,”

petitioners‘
counsel informed the Court that they were successful in concluding an amicable
settlement of the case subject of their proposed petition and submitted with
their Manifestation dated Octo­ber 7,
1977 the following:

“COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

“COME NOW PETITIONERS TAN CHUAN LEONG or RAMON C. L. TAN PALANCA
and GILBERT K. TAN PALANCA and Private Respondent METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, through their duly authorized undersigned counsel, and to this
Honorable Court, respectfully submit the following Compromise Agreement to be
embodied in the Decision of this Honorable Court:

“1.     That petitioners
shall pay to private respondent Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, the
compromised amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) in full settlement of
private respondent Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company’s claim against
petitioners set forth in its Complaint in Civil Case No. 73608 entitled
‘Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. vs. Tan Chuan Leong
or Ramon C. L. Tan Palanca, et al.’ and the further
sum of THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P3,000.00) as full payment of the stipulated
attorney’s fees, upon the signing of this Compromise Agreement;

“2.     That upon receipt of
the aforesaid total sum of P33,000.00, respondent
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company shall have no claim whatsoever against
peti­tioners Tan Chuan Leong or Ramon C. L. Tan Palanca and Gilbert K. Tan Palanca
in connection with or aris­ing out of the Complaint in Civil. Case No. 73608
entitled ‘Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company vs. Tan Chuan Leong or Ramon C. L. Tan Palanca,
et al.’;

“3.     That the parties agree
that this Compromise Agreement, once approved by this Honorable Supreme Court
and embodied in its Decision, shall modify the decision of the Court of Appeals
Subject matter of the instant Petition, insofar as they are inconsistent with
each other.

“WHEREFORE, Petitioners and Private Respondent respectfully
pray that this Honorable Supreme Court approve the foregoing Compromise
Agreement and embody it in its Decision.

“They further pray for such other relief just and equitable
under the premises.

“Manila, Philippines,
September 27, 1977.

“SYQUIA LAW OFFICES                                                                                                     SALONGA
& ASSOCIATES

302-310 Samanillo Building                                                                                                  Suites 322–327 Rufino Bldg.

Escolta, Manila                                                                                                                     Ayala
Avenue, Makati

                                                                                                                                                          Metro
Manila

By:                                                                                                                                      By:

(Sgd.) SALVADOR
B. LAO                                                                                                         (Sgd.) SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ

Counsel for the
Petitioners                                                                                                          Counsel for Private

PTR No. CTO 12-7133 L                                                                                                                                                 Respondent

Manila,
January 3, 1977.”

The Court per its Resolution of October 19, 1977 required the
parties to submit their confirmation of the compromise agreement executed by
their respective counsels pursuant to Rule 138, section 23 and the parties
complied therewith and confirmed the said agreement as per their Compliance
dated October 28, 1977 and Manifestation dated November 10, 1977, both of which
were filed an November 11, 1977.

It appearing that the compromise agreement hereinabove reproduced
is in order and provides for the full satisfaction of respondent bank’s money
claim against petitioners, the Court, as prayed for, hereby approves the same
and as prayed for, renders judgment in accordance therewith.

Makasiar, Muñoz
Palma, Martin, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.