0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
178 vues1 page
The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute over a compromise agreement between heirs to partition an estate. The Court held that (1) a compromise agreement approved by a court becomes binding on the parties and has the force of a legal judgment, (2) the parties waive their right to appeal such a judgment by requesting the court approve the agreement, and (3) while a probate court has jurisdiction over estate matters, it does not have jurisdiction over contractual disputes between heirs after approving a compromise to settle the estate.
The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute over a compromise agreement between heirs to partition an estate. The Court held that (1) a compromise agreement approved by a court becomes binding on the parties and has the force of a legal judgment, (2) the parties waive their right to appeal such a judgment by requesting the court approve the agreement, and (3) while a probate court has jurisdiction over estate matters, it does not have jurisdiction over contractual disputes between heirs after approving a compromise to settle the estate.
The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute over a compromise agreement between heirs to partition an estate. The Court held that (1) a compromise agreement approved by a court becomes binding on the parties and has the force of a legal judgment, (2) the parties waive their right to appeal such a judgment by requesting the court approve the agreement, and (3) while a probate court has jurisdiction over estate matters, it does not have jurisdiction over contractual disputes between heirs after approving a compromise to settle the estate.
G.R. No. 174835 March 22, 2010 CORONA, J. Facts: The decedent left an estate in which the heirs executed a compromise agreement to partition the estate for themselves. However, the refusal by the petitioner to give the right of way and threatened to build a concrete structure to prevent access against the respondent is the cause of the controversy Issue: Can a Probate Court rule on the compromise agreement? Held: A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Once submitted to the court and stamped with judicial approval, it becomes more than a mere private contract binding upon the parties; having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of the controversy, it has the force and effect of any judgment. Consequently, a judgment rendered in accordance with a compromise agreement is immediately executory as there is no appeal from such judgment. When both parties enter into an agreement to end a pending litigation and request that a decision be rendered approving said agreement, such action constitutes an implied waiver of the right to appeal against the said decision. In this instance, the case filed with the RTC was a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Lourdes. The RTC therefore took cognizance of the case as a probate court. Settled is the rule that a probate court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. It acts on matters pertaining to the estate but never on the rights to property arising from the contract. It approves contracts entered into for and on behalf of the estate or the heirs to it but this is by fiat of the Rules of Court. It is apparent therefore that when the RTC approved the compromise agreement on September 13, 2000, the settlement of the estate proceeding came to an end.