JULIANA ABAD AND SINAI C. HAMADA, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELEES, VS. BLAS SAN JUAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Blas San Juan seeks the review by writ of error of a decision of the Court of
First Instance of Baguio, the dispositive part of which reads:

“Judgment is, therefore, rendered, ordering a partition of the Northern
portion adjudicated equally to Blas San Juan and Juliana Abad as appear in
Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘D’ of Civil Case No. 288 of this Court. Should Blas San Juan
refuse to agree to this partition, plaintiff may come to this Court for the
appointment of three commissioners to carry out the same. Blas San Juan is
likewise ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of P300.00 as attorney’s fees and the
costs”.

The main facts are not disputed. In the language of the decision appealed
from:

“In Civil Case 288 of this Court entitled ‘Blas San Juan vs. Intestate Estate
of Sioco Cariño, defendant; Juliana Abad, Intervenor’, the parties entered into
a compromise to the effect that Northern part of Block 1 of the approved
subdivision plan of Lot No. 117-B (see Exibits ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’) should go 1/2
to Juliana Abad as surviving spouse of the late Vicente San Juan and the other
half to Blas San Juan as only surviving son of the late Vicente San Juan. The
compromise was embodied in a decision of this Court dated May 4, 1954 and has
long since become final. When Blas San Juan refused to agree to a partition of
this Northern half with Julian Abed, Juliana Abad has come to this Court. Hamada
is a nominal party plaintiff as it is he who has agreed to defray the expenses
of subdivision and is still willing to do so. His interest in the litigation is
to have this property segregated from the rest of the property of Sioco Cariño.
Essentially, then, this case is for partition involving the execution of a final
decision of this Court (Exhibit ‘A’) which was the result of a compromise. In
his answer, Blas San Juan claims that the compromise was obtained through fraud
in that he had in his possession documents proving that the land was never owned
by Sioco Cariño and that his father had never married Juliana
Abad.”

This pretense of defendant Blas San Juan was rejected by His Honor, the trial
Judge who, accordingly, rendered the decision appealed from.

It appears that said Civil Case No. 288 was originally instituted by Juliana
Abad and Blas San Juan against “the Intestate Estate of Sioco Cariño,
represented by Teodora C. Caoili, Administratrix”, on February 15, 1952. It was
alleged in the original complaint therein, which was subscribed by Atty.
Sinforoso Fangonil, as counsel for the original plaintiffs, Juliana Abad and
Blas San Juan, that “the same are the widow and son, respectively, of one
Vicente San Juan, who died intestate in the City of Baguio, Philippines, in the
year 1944, and, hence, they are his sole and exclusive heirs”; that the late
Sioco Cariño was the owner of Lot No. 117-B of subdivision plan Bsd-2148, Res.
Sec. “K”, Baguio Townsite, G. L. R. O., Record Res. No. 211, Free Patent No.
5899, with an area of 19,058 sq. meters, more or less; that in or about the year
1936, said Sioco Cariño had sold, transferred and convey the late Vicente San
Juan, the northwestern portion of said Lot No. 117-B, with an area of 5,000 sq.
meters; that since the aforementioned sale, the said Vicente San Juan, and,
after his demise, the plaintiffs (Juliana Abad and Blas San Juan) had
continuously and uninterruptedly held and occupied said property as owners
thereof, made permanent improvements thereon, declared it for tax purposes and
paid all real estate taxes due the government; that owing to the continued
absence of Sioco Cariño from Baguio, during the Japanese occupation, and his
subsequent death and that of Vicente San Juan, the official segregation of the
portion purchased by the latter had not been consumated and a separate title
thereto had not been obtained; that upon repeated demands made, after the
liberation of the Philippines, upon defendant Mrs. Caoili and her
co-administrator, Dr. Jose M. Cariño, for the segregation of said portion, said
defendant urged Juliana Abad and Blas San Juan “not to worry as their title and
rights” would be “respected”; that said Juliana Abad and Blas San Juan had come
to know that the aforementioned Lot No. 117-B, including the property in
question, had been transferred and conveyed by Mrs. Caoili to one Hermenegildo
Tayag; that when plaintiffs, thereupon, inquired from Mrs. Caoili about the
truth of said information, the latter bade them not to worry about it, because
the estate still had eighteen (18) months within which to “redeem” (?) said
property; and that Mrs. Caoili had not as yet taken any step to effect said
redemption (?), to the damage and prejudice of said plaintiffs. Hence, the
latter prayed, inter alia, that Mrs. Caoili be ordered to segregate the
property in question, by causing a subdivision of said Lot No. 117-B to be made,
and to execute the papers necessary in order that said plaintiffs could secure a
separate title to said property, or else to pay the value thereof, and the
costs.

About a week later, Atty. Fangonil filed an amended complaint, naming therein
Blas San Juan as the only plaintiff, and including Hermenegildo Tayag as one of
the defendants. Subsequently, the defendants filed motions to dismiss and, later
on, their respective answers, admitting the formal allegations of the original
complaint and of the several amendments thereof, denying specifically all other
allegations of said complaint and setting up special defenses, as wall as a
counterclaim for damages. Later on, or on January 26, 1953, Juliana Abad filed,
with the court’s permission, a complaint in intervention, reproducing, in
effect, the allegations of the original complaint filed by her jointly with Blas
San Juan. She, likewise, filed an answer to defendants’ counterclaim.
Thereafter, Blas San Juan filed a supplemental complaint, including Sinai C.
Hamada—who had allegedly acquired the rights of defendant Hermenegildo Tayag—as
one of the defendants.

After several postponements of the hearing, based upon the pendency of
negotiations for an amicable settlement of the case, a compromise agreement,
signed by the parties and their counsel, was filed on May 5, 1954. The agreement
stated that “defendant Hermenegildo Tayag and/or his assignee Sinai C. Hamada”
had agreed and bound himself “to give, convey, cede, transfer and assign to the
heirs, succesors and assigns of the deceased Vicente San Juan, who are
respectively the widow and son, intervenor and plaintiff therein, “exactly
one-half (1/2) of the total area of Block 1 of * * * Lot No. 117-B of the
subdivision plan Bsd 2148, which Lot No. 117-B is situated in the Res. Sec. ‘K’,
Baguio City, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1746; or, in
other words, the total area of one thousand five hundred eighty-six (1,586)
square meters, which half portion of said Block 1 of subdivision plan Bsd-2148
shall be taken as segregated from the Northern half of said Block 1”. It was
prayed in the agreement that the same be approved and that judgment be rendered
in accordance therewith. The court did so in a decision rendered on said date
(May 5, 1954).

As above indicated, appellant herein assails the validity of such decision,
upon the ground that it had been secured by fraud, but, the lower court held
otherwise, and appellant does not insist in his aforementioned contention. He
now alleges, however, that said decision is null and void, it being based upon
an agreement which, he claims, suffers from such flaw, inasmuch as article 2035
of our Civil Code reads:

“No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid:

(1) The civil status of persons;
(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal
separation;
(3) Any ground for legal separation;
(4) Future
support;
(5) The jurisdiction of courts;
(6) Future
legitime.”

This provision is inapplicable to the compromise agreement aforementioned. At
the outset, it should be noted that Civil Case No. 288, was, in effect, an
action for partition between the heirs of Vicente San Juan—who had allegedly
bought part of the land of Sioco Cariño, deceased—on the one hand, and the
administratrix of the estate of the latter and his successors and/or assigns, on
the other. The status of Juliana Abad as widow of Vicente San Juan was never in
issue therein. What is more, it was specifically and expressly alleged in the
original complaint in said case, filed jointly by Juliana and Blas San Juan,
that these original plaintiffs are “the widow and son”, respectively, of said
Vicente San Juan, and the truth of this allegation was explicitly
admitted by the defendants in their answers. Although Juliana Abad was
excluded as party in the first and subsequent amended complaints filed by Blas
San Juan, there is no allegation of fact in his aforementioned pleadings that is
necessarily inconsistent with the claim of Juliana Abad. Indeed, despite the
circumstance that her complaint in intervention was filed on January 26, 1953,
and the defendants had answered thereto, admitting that Juliana Abad is
the widow of Vicente San Juan, and notwithstanding the fact that a supplemental
complaint—including Sinai C. Hamada as one of the defendants—had been filed on
April 29, 1953 by Blas San Juan, the latter filed no answer to said complaint in
intervention or any other pleading denying that Juliana Abad was the wife of
Vicente San Juan. On the contrary, Blas San Juan and his counsel subscribed said
compromise agreement which reiterates the existence of said relationship.
Inasmuch as the only point in issue in Civil Case No. 288 when the compromise
agreement was reached and approved by the court, was not the aforementioned
relationship, but whether Vicente San Juan had purchased from Sioco Cariño, and
then possessed the disputed portion of Lot No. 117-B, it follows that the status
of Juliana Abad was not the subject-matter of said agreement, and the above
quoted Article 2035 is not applicable thereto.

Regardless, however, of the foregoing, the effect of this legal provision
upon the decision in Case No. 288 was, at most, to render said decision
erroneous and to warrant a reversal thereof proper, had an appeal been taken
therefrom. Said decision was neither null nor void, for the Court of First
Instance of Baguio admittedly had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
case, over the parties and over the rest. It was valid, therefore, no matter how
erroneous it may have been, and, none of the parties having appealed therefrom,
said decision be came final and executory (Mandac vs. Gumarad, 87 Phil., 278; 47
Off. Gaz., Supp. No. 12, p. 449; Feria vs. Suva, 92 Phil., 963; Daquis vs.
Bustos, 94 Phil., 913; 50 Off. Gaz., 1964; Araneta vs. Commonwealth Insurance
Co., 103 Phil., 522; 55 Off. Gaz. [3]431; Cenido vs. Court of Appeals, L-10634,
May 28, 1958). Indeed, in the very answer filed by herein ajppelllant in the
lower court, he alleged, not that said decision was null and void, but that “the
same is voidable by virtue of the mistake, fraud and falsity of the
representations made by the plaintiff Juliana Abad”. No such “mistake, fraud and
falsity” having been established by appellant herein, it follows necessarily
that the lower court did not err in rendering the decision appealed from.

WHEREFORE, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against
defendant-appellant, Blas San Juan. It is so ordered.

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