ANISIA AQUINO AND AMBROSIO AQUINO, IN HIS OWN BEHALF AND AS GUARDIAN AD-LITEM OF HIS MINOR GRANDCHILDREN MARIA CORONA AQUINO AND ISABEL AQUINO, PETITIONERS, VS. SOTERO ESGUERRA …

On November 19, 1928, Filomena Manaois sold a parcel of land to
Sotero Esguerra, with right of repurchase within five years. Filomena
Manaois died in 1929. The land, which was never repurchased,
subsequently became the subject of a cadastral proceeding as lot 2758;
and by decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on August 5, 1938,
only.a three-fifth portion thereof was adjudicated to the heirs of
Filoaena Manaois subject to the sale in favor of Sotero Esguerra, the
remaining two-fifths portion being awarded to Teodora Manaois. In view
of this loss to Sotero Esguerra of a portion of lot 2758, Anisia
Aquino, Arnulfo Aquino, Romulo Aquino and Benigno Aquino, children of
Filomena Manaois, the latter two (then minors) being represented by
Ambrosio Aquino, husband of Filomena Manaois, executed on November 12,
1940, an agreement whereby they conveyed to Sotero Esguerra a portion
of three-fifths of lot 2761 also adjudicated in the cadastral
proceeding to Filoaana rianaois. The agreement provided that the heirs
of Filomena-Manaois “cedes, y traspasan a favor de Sotero Sscuerra, sus
herederos y causahabiontes, una porcion del loto 2761 da las tres
quintas 3/5 partes que se les hatoia adjudicado, equivalento a la
ex:tonsion superficial de los dos quintas 2/5 partes que se adjudico a
favor de Teodora Manaois del lote 2758 para recompensar la porcion que
se habia pordido Sotero Esguerra del lote 2758.”

Failing to gat possession of the portion conveyed by the heirs of Pilomena Manaois under this agreement, Sotero Esguerra and his wife, Rufina iandoc, instituted in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan
a complaint against Anisia Aquino, Romulo Aquino, Benigno Aquino, Maria
Corona Aquino and Isabel Aquino, the latter two beihe; the children of
Arnulfo Aquino, deceased, to rettopfar said portion and lost rentals.
After trial, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan rendered a
decision disaissing the complaint. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals
promulgated a decision the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

“For the foregoing considerations, the judgment
appealed ,fro:n is hereby affirmed in so far as it dismisses the action
against the defendants Romulo Aquino and Benigno Aquino, and is
reversed as to defendants Anisia Aquino and Maria Corona Aquino and
Isabel Aquino, and it is hereby declared that the plaintiffs are the
owners and are entitled to the possession of an ¦undivided three tenths
3/10 portion of Lot No. 2761, which portion is the share of the latter
in the said parcel of land, and said defendants Anisia Aquino and Maria
Corona Aquino and Isabel Aquino are hereby sentenced to indemnify the
plaintiffs for damages for the possession of the .said portion at the
rate of P103 a year (P51.50 for Anisia and P51.50 jointly for Maria
Corona and Isabel), beginning the year 1942 until the said portion is
deliver eel to the plaintiffs. Without pronouncement as to costs in
both instances.”

The case is now “before us on appeal by certiorari by Anisia Aquino
and Ambrosio Aquino, the latter in his own behalf and as guardian ad litem
of the minors Maria Corona Aquino and Isabel Aquino. It is argued by
petitioners that the agreement of November 12, 1940, Exhibit C, is not
valid, being prompted by the wrong belief of the petitioner that they
were bound to compensate Sotero Esguerra for the portion of lot 2758
lost by him as a result of the adjudication in favor of Teodora Manaois of a two-fifths portion thereof in the cadastral proceeding,
and that while Filomena Manaois was legally obligated to warrant her
title to the land sold to Sotero Esguerra, the latter’s remedy is
against her estate, not against her heirs who are not answerable for
her debts and obligations.

The Court of Appeals correctly upheld the validity of Exhibit C in
so-far as it concerns Anisia Aquino and Arnulfo Aquino ‘(the latter
being substituted by his children Maria Corona Aquino and Isabel
Aquino), because the said Anisia and Arnulfo Aquino were of age when
they executed the agreement. As properly ruled by the Court of Appeals,
“the agreement was convenient and wise for them, not only because it
would relieve the other properties from the charge or lien with which
they inherited them from the deceased, but also because it would
prevent a circuitous and expensive litigation in court (such as that
suggested by the trial court), into which they would have been dragged
if the vendee would enforce the deceased’s obligation of warranty for
his eviction in part of the property sold to him by the deceased. The
conveyance saved the estate from a possible litigation and its
execution was for a valid and valuable consideration (Ibañez de Aldecoa
vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Bank, 30 Phil. 228, 255). It is
apparent that it is neither contrary to law, nor public policy, nor
public morals, and perfectly valid as against those who were competent
to execute it.”

Under Exhibit C, in exchange for the conveyance by the heirs of
Filomena Manaois of a portion of lot 2761, Sotero Esguerra coutenanted
that, “cualquier derecho o reclamacion que tuviere Sotero Esguerra
contra los herederos de la finada Filomena Manaois e Isabel Daroy,
queda por la presente, zanjada y arreglada definitivamente, en virtud
de la presente transaccion.” Accordingly, the agreement may well be
considered as a contract of compromise.

The Court of Appeals has premised the liability of the petitioners
upon Exhibit C. Lot 2761 is alleged in the very complaint filed by the
respondents (plaintiffs below) as having an area of 72,656 square
meters. Said complaint specifically prayed that the respondents be
declared the owners of 10,317.6 square meters of lot 2761, which “is
equivalent to the 2/5 of lot No. 2758.” This relief “is clearly in
conformity with Exhibit C conveying “una porcion del lote 2761 de las
3/5 partes que se les habia adjudicado, equivalente a la extension
superficial de los 2/5 partes que se adjudico a, favor de Teodora
Manaois del lote 2758 para recompensar la porcion que se habia perdido
Sotero Esguerra del lote 2758.”

In the dispositive part of the decision of ths Court of Appeals,
the respondents are declared the owners and entitled to the possession
of “an undivided three tenths 3/10 portion of lot 2761,” which
literally means that said respondents are being awarded 21,796.8 square
meters, is clearly inconsistent with the ruling of the Court Appeals
giving effect to the agreement of November 12, 1940, Exhibit C, under
which, as already noted, the portion conveyed to the respondents was
only a part of lot 2761 equivalent to two-fifths of lot 2758 lost by
the respondents, said lost portion having an area, according to the
very complaint of respondents, of 10,317.6 square meters. The complaint
having been dismissed by the Court of Appeals as to the two minor heirs
of Pilomena Manaois, and sustained as to the shares of her two other
children, the respondents should be entitled only to one-half of
10,317.6 square meters, or 5,158.8 square meters, of lot 2761.

With respect to the contention of the petitioners that the damages
to which the respondents are entitled should only be one-half of
P113.60, or P56.80, payable beginning 1943, the decision of the Court
of Appeals does not contain any finding which would warrant
petitioners’ claim. As the amount awarded by the Court of Appeals and
the year from which payment should start, refer to factual matters, as
to which said court has made definite, findings in its, decision, the
same cannot be the subject of review in this appeal by certiorari.

It being understood that the respondents are declared to be the
owners and entitled to the possession of an area of only 5,158.8.
square meters of lot 2761, the appealed decision of the Court of
Appeals is, in all other respects, hereby affirmed without costs. So
ordered.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Feria, Pablo, Tuason, and Montemayor, JJ., concur.