THE HEIRS OF GABRIEL CAPILI, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. GUALBERTO J. DE LA LANA, PRESIDING JUDGE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BULACAN, BRANCH XVI, MR. PERLITO G. DIM…

This case stems from a complaint, docketed Civil Case No. 7393-M,
for “Confirmation of Ownership (and) Recovery of Possession with Damages,”
filed on 30 March 1984 by private respondents against petitioners’ predecessor,
the late Gabriel Capili, with the Regional Trial Court, Branch XVI – Malolos,
Bulacan.

Private respondents alleged that they were co-owners and
co-possessors of a parcel of land, with an area of 327 square meters, situated
at Sta. Cruz, Paombong, Bulacan; that the property had, since 1961, been
occupied by Gabriel Capili merely through the tolerance of private respondents;
that when private respondents demanded that Capili vacate the premises, the latter refused and instead filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application over the lot, but that the application was denied by
the Bureau of Lands; and that on appeal
to the then Ministry of Natural
Resources, the latter, on 29 October
1982, affirmed the decision of the Bureau of Lands.

Capili was declared in
default in Civil Case No. 7393-M, and private respondents were allowed to
present their evidence ex parte. On 30 July 1984, the trial
court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which read:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant:

“1) declaring and/or confirming plaintiffs’
ownership over the parcel of land identified as Lot No. 2019, Cad-297;

“2) ordering the defendant as well as all
persons acting for and in his behalf to vacate the premises and to surrender
the possession of the subject property to the plaintiffs;

“3) ordering the defendant to pay actual damages
to the plaintiffs in the amount of P5,000.00;

“4) ordering the defendant to pay attorney’s
fees in the amount of P5,000.00; and

“5) ordering the defendant to pay the costs of suit.

“SO ORDERED.”^[1]

Capili filed, on 04 October 1984, a petition for relief from
judgment which the trial court denied in its order, dated 06 December 1984, for
lack of merit. An appeal was interposed
with the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals). On 18 October 1985, the appellate court
rendered a decision denying the petition, dismissing the case and lifting the
restraining order it previously issued. A motion for reconsideration was denied in the appellate court’s
resolution of 22 November 1985.

Thereafter, this petition for review on certiorari
was filed with this Court raising the following issues:

“WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT TRIAL JUDGE
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR RELIEF OF
JUDGMENT.

“WHETHER OR NOT IN THE CASE AT BAR THE
DENIAL OF THE PETITION FOR RELIEF CAN BE REVIEWED BY A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.”

A supplemental petition, dated 07 May 1986, was subsequently
filed to state that the then Ministry of Natural Resources, in an order, dated
10 April 1986, modified its 29 October 1982 decision thusly:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision of this Office dated
October 29, 1982 should be, as hereby it is, MODIFIED, in the sense that
appellant-movant Gabriel Capili shall be given priority over the western-half
portion of the lot in question where his house had been constructed, and the
other half shall be given to appellees Luis and Pascuala Salamat. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Sales
Application No. (III-6) 112 of Gabriel Capili shall be given further due course
for the western-half portion of the land and Luis and Pascuala Salamat shall be
given the privilege to apply under a proper public land application the
eastern-half portion, within sixty (60) days from finality of this Order.

“SO ORDERED.^[2]

Private respondents
submitted their comment to the petition on 12 October 1987. Meanwhile,
the Court, on 22 October 1987,
received a “notice of death of (Capili) and
substitution of (said) party by his heirs.” On 15 December 1987, petitioners submitted their reply to private
respondents’ comment. A rejoinder,
dated 10 February 1988, was made to the comment. Thereafter, additional pleadings were filed by the parties.

Ultimately, this Court
resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to submit
their respective memoranda. The parties
complied.

On 19 April 1994, the parties this time, represented by their
attorneys-in-fact, submitted to this Court a compromise agreement, hereunder
reproduced in full; viz:

“PETITIONERS and PRIVATE RESPONDENTS represented herein by
their respective Attorneys-in-Fact, most respectfully submit their Compromise
Agreement:

“1. The late Gabriel Capili and Luis Salamat
during their lifetime and together with Pascuala Salamat were claimants of a
certain parcel of land known as Lot No. 2019, Cad-279, located at Sta. Cruz,
Paombong, Bulacan, and more particularly described and bounded as follows:

“’A parcel of land (Lot 2019 of the Cadastral Survey of
Paombong, Bulacan, LRC Cad Rec. No. situated in the barrio of Sta. Cruz,
Municipality of Paombong, Province of Bulacan. Bounded on the NW., along line 1-2 by Lot 2018 Paombong Cadastre; on the
NE., along line 2-3-4 by Creek; on the SW., along line 4-1 by Lot 2020 Paombong
Cadastre. Beginning at a point marked
‘1’ on plan being S.02 deg. 08’E 8090.21 m from BLLM No. 1, Paombong Cadastre;
thence N.26 deg. 12’E., 24.13 m to point 2; thence S.45 deg. 31’E., 12.66 m to
point 3; thence S.01 deg. 22’W., 18.78 m to point 4; thence N. 72 deg. 42’W.,
20.14 m to point of beginning,
containing an area of THREE HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN (327) SQUARE METERS, more or
less.’

“2.     In the Order dated April 10, 1986 of the
Ministry of Natural Resources (now Department of Environment and Natural
Resources) in MNR Case No. 6014, entitled, ‘Luis Salamat and Pascuala Salamat
versus Gabriel Capili,’ the late Gabriel Capili was given the priority over the
western-half portion of the above lot where his house had been constructed and
the other half was given to the Late Luis Salamat and Pascuala Salamat. The said order was affirmed by the Office of
the President, Malacañang, Manila, in its Decision dated January 20, 1988, in
O.P. Case No. 3385, entitled, ‘Luis Salamat and Pascuala Salamat versus Gabriel
Capili (Deceased) Represented by the Heirs.’

“3.     The parties desire to terminate all the
litigations involving the aforecited parcel of land.

“4. Private respondents-Pascuala L. Salamat
and the Heirs of Luis Salamat for and in consideration of the sum of THIRTY
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P35,000.00), Philippine Currency, will assign, transfer and convey in favor
of petitioners, their interests, rights, ownership and participations over the
EASTERN-HALF portion of the aforesaid parcel of land-Lot No. 2019, Cad-279.

“5.     The amount of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P35,000.00) shall be paid as
follows:

a). P20,000.00 upon the signing of this Compromise Agreement;

b). The balance of P15,000.00 shall be paid on or before April 30, 1994.

“6.     Upon the full payment of the amount of
P35,000.00, private respondents-Pascuala Salamat and the Heirs of Luis Salamat
will execute in favor of petitioners a DEED OF ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER OF
RIGHTS over the EASTERN-HALF PORTION of the aforementioned Lot No. 2019,
Cad-279.

“7.     Upon the signing of the Deed of Assignment
and Transfer of Rights, private respondents-Pascuala Salamat and the Heirs of
Luis Salamat will deliver peacefully the possession of the eastern-half portion
of Lot No. 2019, Cad-279 to petitioners who will assume full control and
possession thereof.

“8.     The parties shall initiate and cause to do
the following acts, to wit:

a). The dismissal of the following:

a-1). Civil Case No. 7393-M, entitled, ‘Luis and
Pascuala Salamat versus Gabriel Capili’ for Confirmation of Title/Ownership,
Recovery of Possession with Damages, at Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch
XVI, Malolos, Bulacan; and

a-2). BL Claim No. 229 (M), DLO Claim No. 044 Lot
No. 2019, Cad-279, Sta. Cruz, Paombong, Bulacan, ‘Luis Salamat and Pascuala
Salamat vs. MSA No. (111-­6) 112, Gabriel Capili’ with the Bureau of Lands.

b).     Petitioners will apply in their respective
names to effect the issuance of title/patent and cause the registration in
WHOLE of Lot No. 2019, Cad-279, with the Bureau of Lands (now Land Management
Bureau) under MSA No. (111-6) 112 Gabriel Capili or under the new scheme of
disposition or application or with the court or any agencies of the government.

“7.     Private respondents-Pascuala Salamat and
the Heirs of Luis Salamat accept this settlement in consideration of the
representation of petitioners that they will faithfully and religiously comply
and perform the terms band conditions of this Agreement especially the payment
of the balance of the amount of P15,000.00 on or before April 30, 1994.

“8.     Petitioners are represented herein by their
Attorney-in-Fact, CESARIO M. CAPILI by virtue of the Special Power of Attorney
executed by the Heirs on February 7, 1994 before Notary Public Perseveranda A.
Abrenica of Makati, Metro Manila and entered in her Notarial Books as Doc. No.
140; Page No. 29; Book No. IX; Series of 1994, and a copy of which is hereto
attached as Annex “A” and made integral part hereof.

“Private respondents-Pascuala Salamat and the Heirs of Luis
Salamat are represented herein by their Attorney-in-Fact, GRACIANA
SALAMAT-KAMANTIGUE by virtue of the Special Power of Attorney executed by them
on April 8, 1994 before Notary Public Pacifico G. Eusebio, Jr., of Malolos,
Bulacan, and entered in his Notarial Book as Doc. No. 402; Page 82; Book No.
XIV; Series of 1994, and a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex
“B” and made integral part hereof.

“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court
that this Compromise Agreement be approved and that judgment be made approving
the terms thereof.

“The parties also pray for such other reliefs deemed just and
equitable under the premises.”

We find the compromise agreement to be in order. In consonance with the policy of encouraging
the settlement of disputes amicably and finding the compromise not to be
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy, the
Court gives its sanction to the agreement.

WHEREFORE, the compromise agreement entered into by and
between the parties is hereby APPROVED. The parties are ENJOINED to faithfully comply with the covenants, terms
and conditions therein expressed. This
resolution is immediately executory. No
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ., concur.

^[1] Rollo,
pp. 28-29.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 64.