Judgement On Compromise Agreement

The petitioner Ago failed with his payment and therefore, in 1958, respondent Grace Park Engineering, Inc. an out-of-court foreclosure procedure for the mortgage. To do so, the petitioner initiated civil action No. 53 before the Agusan Magistrates Court. The parties to the case reached a compromise agreement and presented it in writing to the court: Signed by Pastor D. Ago and Engineering Grace Park, Inc. Hon. Montano A. Ortiz, judge of the Agusan District Court, then President, dictated a decision in court on January 28, 1959.chanroblesvirualawlibrary virtual rechtchanrobles library it is a general rule in this jurisdiction that a judgment on the basis of a compromise agreement is not questionable and is liable and is immediately executed, unless an application is filed for fraud, error or coercion. (De los Reyes vs.

Ugarte, 75 Phil. 505; Lapena vs. Morfe, R.G. No. L-10089, 31 July 1957) the Virtual Law Library Petitioner`s assertion that it was not informed or served on the decision is untenable. The judgment of 28 January 1959 on the following court compromise agreement was rendered in open court. This is an essential respect that must be respected. (De los Reyes vs Ugarte, supra)chanrobles virtual law library in this case for certiorari and prohibition with injunction, it is clear from the records that the appeal judge of the Agusan Trial Court ruled (Annex “A”) in open court on 28 January 1959, on the basis of that judgment on a compromise agreement between the parties.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary , the petitioner argues that the Court of Appeal erred (1) as the decision on a compromise in January 1959 is sufficient communication; and (2) not to resolve the other issues raised before him, namely: (a) the legality of the sheriff`s public auction and b) the nature of the machines in question, whether mobile or real. , is not sufficient to be the meaning of the judgment, as required by section 2, section 7, of the signed judgment, which had not been served on the petitioner, that judgment could not be effective against him (the petitioner) who had not received it. It follows that the issuance of the execution is null and void after being issued before petpeter, a copy of the decision was served on him in person or by letter recommended.chanroblesvirualablibraryraryrrobles Virtual Library Satoik Petitioner remains late in payment, as provided in the judgment by compromise, according to Grace Park Engineering, Inc. filed an application for execution filed in the lower court , which was granted by the court on August 15, 1959. A letter of execution dated September 23, 1959 followed later.chanroblesvirtuallibrarychanrobles virtual legal library The Court of Appeals held that, since a judgment was registered in open proceedings by the court following the presentation of the compromise agreement, the parties may be considered to be informed of that judgment and that this fact constitutes a correct communication of that judgment.

This raises the legal question: if the order is dictated by an open court of the court`s judgment, and if the fact that the petitioner was present in public court, was the judgment dictated, sufficiently emphasized? The provisions of the Court`s regulation provide for something else. Article 35, paragraph 1, describes how the decision is taken, i.e. a compromise agreement is binding between the parties and becomes a law between them.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback: Trackback URL.