AMABLE VALDEZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. PEDRO OCTAVIANO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

This is an appeal from an order entered by the Court of First Instance
of Baguio City dismissing the complaint of Amable Valdez on the ground
of res judicata.

It appears that on July 20, 1959,
Amable Valdez, claiming to be a co-owner of spouses Pedro and Josefa
Octaviano of a lot known as Lot 147 New-B Residential Section K, Baguio
townsite, containing an area of 2,008 sq. m., filed a complaint, in
said court praying that said spouses be ordered to pay him the sum of
P9,300.00 as his share in the sale of 300 sq. m. of the above-mentioned
property to Ilagan Funeraria.

The defendants filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground that the action is barred by a prior judgment.
To support their motion they invoked the final decision and orders
entered by the court in Civil Cases Nos. 832, 110 and 115 involving the
same parties and the same subject matter. Plaintiff filed an opposition
to the motion claiming that, in view of the failure of defendants to
pay him the sum of P300.00 which they were ordered to pay in paragraph
3 of the amicable settlement covered by the decision in Civil Case No.
382, said settlement became ineffective thereby placing the parties in status quo with regard to the property litigated.

The lower court, overruling this contention, dismissed the complaint in an order which reads:

“A motion to dismiss has been presented on the ground of res judicata,
that by virtue of a final judgment of this Court, Plaintiff had already
renounced all rights to the land and improvements in question. The
certified copy of the decision as well as orders in two other attempts
of Plaintiff to reopen the same issues before this Court have been
presented in evidence and all amply support the contention of
Defendants that res judicata exists.

“The motion to dismiss is granted and Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed with costs against Plaintiff.”

There is no merit in this appeal. It appears that the property of which
plaintiff claims to be co-owner and portion of which was sold by
defendants to Funeraria Ilagan has already been adjudicated to said
defendants for valuable consideration in the amicable settlement
concluded between the parties in the former case wherein they were
enjoined to strictly comply with the terms and conditions thereof.^[1]
In said settlement appellant had expressly renounced whatever claim or
right he may have over the lot in litigation as well as over the
improvements existing thereon. The decision became final for lack of
appeal. And on the strength of said settlement appellees made the sale
of a portion of the land which appellant is now disputing allegedly as
a co-owner of the property. Evidently, this claim is now barred by
prior judgment under the principle of res judicata.

It is true that appellant now claims that one of the conditions
stipulated in the amicable settlement is that appellees should pay
appellant the sum of P300.00 as reimbursement of certain expenses
incurred by him in connection with the property and that appellees have
failed to comply with said condition. This failure, however, even if
true, cannot have the effect of rescinding or nullifying the amicable
settlement. The remedy of appellant is to file a motion for the
execution of that portion of the judgment and not litigate anew the
property which has been the subject of settlement in the former case.
This matter is now res judicata.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant.

Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B, L., Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
The compromise was signed on December 19, 1940.