JUANITA JUAN-MARCELO, LAURO MARCELO, ANITA JUAN-LABAYOG, VICTORINO LABAYOG, ERLINDA JUAN-SINGSON, AMADO SINGSON, JUAN S. JUAN, JR., GUADALUPE REYES-JUAN, ORLANDO S. JUAN, VIRGIN…

This case is before
this Court on appeal by the defendants, who are at the same time
third-party-plaintiffs, from the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, in its Civil Case No. 54871, dated August 8, 1966, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment annuling the Deed of Sale (Exhibits B & 65) and
ordering the cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 46415 issued
in the name of defendant Equitable Development Company and another one issued in the name of the plaintiffs, and ordering the defendants to pay
the plaintiffs, jointly and severally:

“(a) the sum of P49,000.00 represent­ing
one-half of the fair market value of the improvement which was demolished by
the defendants in 1950;

“(b) the sum of P15,810.00 annually representing one-half (1/2) of
the fair annual rental value of the property from October 23, 1946, the date of
the order denying the petition for registration of the property in the name of
defendant Go Kim Pah and on which date also the obli­gation of the latter to
return the prop­erty in accordance with the agreement, until August 31, 1963,
the date when the present action was filed, or a total sum of P265,573.91 with
interest at the rate of six per cent (6%) per annum from the filing of the
complaint;

“(c) the sum of P31,620.00 as the fair rental value of the
improvement from September 1, 1963 up to the time the possession of the property shall have
been completely restored to the plaintiffs;

“(d) the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees of counsel for the
plain­tiffs, which is the same amount claim by defendants; and

“(e) ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendants the sum of
P42,000.00 re­presenting the redemption price of the one-half (1/2) of the
property litigated sold by the third-party defendant to de­fendant Go Kim Pah, which may be set-off or deducted from the sums due the
plaintiffs.

“The third-party
complaint filed by the defendants third-party
plaintiffs against the third-party defendant Juan P. Juan, Sr., is hereby dismissed with costs against the defendants.”

A compromise agreement,
dated December 29, 1967, signed by all the parties and their respective
counsel, was submitted to this Court, as follows:

“COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

“COME NOW the parties assisted by their respective undersigned
counsel and to this Honorable Supreme
Court respectfully submits the
following compromise agreement:

“1.  That the plaintiffs-appellees had
filed a complaint and an amended
complaint against the defendants-appellants docketed as Civil Case No. 54871 of
the Court of First Instance of Manila praying for the annulment of sale,
cancellation of trans­fer certificate of title, partition, legal redemption by
plaintiffs-appellees of one-half (1/2) of the
property, and recovery of damages, back rentals, attorney’s fees and possession of that certain parcel of land
described as follows:

“(T.C.T. No. 46415, Register of Deeds of Manila)

‘A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot No. 39 of Block No. 2012 of the Ca­dastral
Survey of the City of Manila), with the buildings and improvements thereon,
except those herein expressly noted as belonging to other persons, si­tuated on the SE. line of Calle Hormiga District
of Binondo. Bounded on the NE. by Calle
Hormiga and Lot No. 40
of Block No. 2012; on the SE. by Lot No. 37
of Block No. 2012; on the SW. by Lot No. 38 of Block No. 2012; and on the NW. by Calle Hormiga.  Beginning at a point marked
1 on plan, having N. 78 deg. 05’W., 127.86 m. from B.L.L.M. No. 29 and N. 27
deg. 59’W., 51.11 m. from Fire Hydrant No. 331; thence N. 29 deg. 39’W.
14.46 m. to point 2; thence N. 69 deg. 58’E., 8.92 m. to point 3; thence S. 69
deg. 06’E., 8.55 m. to point 4; thence S. 45 deg. 00’E., 0.14 m. to point 5;
thence S. 23 deg. 02’E., 12.83 m. to point 6; thence S. 64 deg. 47’W., 15.85 m.
to the point of beginning; containing an area of TWO HUNDRED
TWENTY SEVEN SQUARE METERS and TEN SQUARE DECIMETERS(227.10), more or less.  All points re­ferred to are indicated on the
plan and on the ground point 2 is marked by a spike in corner of wall; points 3 to 5 by new galvanized
iron spikes; point 6 by a tack on top of wall; bearings true; date of survey,
May 23, 1916 – October 6, 1917.  x x x’

“2.  That the
defendants-appellants had filed their answer to the complaint and amended
complaint interposing several defenses
and also a third-party
complaint against Juan P. Juan, Sr. and third-party defendant-appellee, Juan P. Juan, Sr., had filed his Answer thereto
with a counterclaim praying for the annulment of sale also prayed for by
plaintiff-appellees and for attorney’s fees.

“3.  That
the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision dated Au­gust 8, 1966, and the defendants-appel­lants not being satisfied with the
same have already perfected
their appeal, sub­mitted their printed Record on Appeal and are as a matter of
fact in the process of preparing their Brief to be filed with this Honorable Court. 
Considering that it will take a long time for said appeal to be decided
the parties hereto have agreed to compromise and amicably settle this case.

“4.  That
for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and of the sum of FORTY TWO
THOUSAND PESOS ONLY (P42,000.00), Philippine Currency, which amount the defendants-appellants agree to pay to the plaintiffs-appellees
and third-party-defendant-appellee in cash immediately upon the rendition of the Decision or order of the
Court approving this Compromise Agree­ment, the parties hereto hereby settle
this case amicably and agree as follows:

a.   The
parties hereto agree that the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila
in said Civil Case No. 54871 dated Au­gust 8, 1966 shall be deemed vacated and
set aside and with­out force and effect and in lieu thereof another decision be
ren­dered by this Honorable Court, embodying this Compromise Agreement, and
declaring the defendant-appellant Equitable Development Company as the true and
ab­solute owner of the property described in paragraph 1 hereof and the
cancellation of the Notice of lis pendens
annotated as Entry No.
3120/2417 under the date of September 2, 1963 on the original of Transfer
Certificate of Title. No. 46415, T-507 of the Register of Deeds of Manila at
the instance of plaintiffs-appellees;

b.   The plaintiffs-appellees
and third-party defendant-appellee hereby waive
absolutely and forever any and all claims that they have against
defendants-appellants and Charles Go,
who is also one of the children of defendant-appellant
Go Kim Pah and one of the partners in
defendant-appellant Equitable Development Com­pany, and over the property
described in paragraph 1 hereof as well as on any improvement which stood, stands or which may
be constructed thereon;

c.   The parties abandon and relinquish absolutely
and finally any and all claims, demands and counterclaims in the complaint,
amended complaint, answer, third-party complaint and answer to third-party
complaint and in all such other pleadings in this case;

d.   Plaintiffs-appellees
and third-party-defendant-appellee hereby recognize the present ownership of defendant-appellant Equitable Deve­lopment Company of the property
described in paragraph 1 hereof and of the validity of its title thereto as evidenced by T.C.T. No. 46415 of the
Register of Deeds of Manila, as well as
the previous acquisition by and ownership of the other
defendants-appellants and CHARLES GO of
said property; and

e.   Plaintiffs-appellees
and third-party-defendant-appellee hereby, represent
and warrant that they are the only heirs of the deceased Lucia T. Santos and
there­tofore the only parties who could have any claim or right to the
property, described in paragraph 1 hereof.

“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this compromise
agreement be approved and that the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Manila in Civil Case No. 54871 dated August
8, 1966, be set aside and in lieu thereof judgment be rendered by
this Honorable Supreme Court embodying this agreement.

“Manila, Philippines,
December 29, 1967.”

Finding the foregoing
compromise agreement not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals
or good custom, the same is approved. 
The decision of the lower court of August 8, 1966 is set aside, and in
lieu thereof judgment is hereby rendered in conformity with, and embodying the
terms and conditions mentioned in, the above-quoted Compromise Agreement.  No costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.