Land Bank v. Soriano (G.R. No. 178312; January 30, 2013)
CASE DIGEST: LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF SPOUSES JORJA RIGOR-SORIANO AND MAGIN SORIANO, NAMELY: MARIVEL S. CARANDANG AND JOSEPH SORIANO. (G.R. No. 178312; January 30, 2013).
FACTS: Marivel Carandang and Joseph Soriano are the children of the late Sps. Jorja Rigor- Soriano and Magin Soriano, the owners of the two parcels of land located in Macabucod, Aliaga, Nueva Ecija. The properties became subject to Operation Land Transfer (OLT) and were valued by the Land Bank and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) at P10,000.00/hectare. Contending that such valuation was too low compared to existing valuations of agricultural lands, the heirs commenced an action for just compensation. They asked that a final valuation of the properties be pegged at P1,800,000.00, based on Administrative Order No. 61, Series of 1992 and R.A. No. 6657.
The RTC ordered Land Bank to pay the heirs the amount P1,227,571.10 as just compensation.
Land Bank appealed to the CA. The CA denied the petition.
Hence, Land Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
During the pendency of the appeal, both parties entered into an agreement re-evaluating the cost of the parcels of land. Thus, Land Bank submitted a manifestation informing the High Court that the parties have already filed their Joint Motion to Approve submitting their Agreement dated November 29, 2012.ISSUE: Should the present appeal to the Supreme Court be dismissed?
HELD: The Agreement was a compromise that the parties freely and voluntarily entered into for the purpose of finally settling their dispute in this case. Under Art. 2028 of the Civil Code, a compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Accordingly, a compromise is either judicial, if the objective is to put an end to a pending litigation, or extrajudicial, if the objective is to avoid a litigation.
As a contract, a compromise is perfected by mutual consent. However, a judicial compromise, while immediately binding between the parties upon its execution, is not executory until it is approved by the court and reduced to a judgment. The validity of a compromise is dependent upon its compliance with the requisites and principles of contracts dictated by law. Also, the terms and conditions of a compromise must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order. A review of the terms of the Agreement, indicates that it is a judicial compromise because the parties intended it to terminate their pending litigation by fully settling their dispute.
FACTS: Marivel Carandang and Joseph Soriano are the children of the late Sps. Jorja Rigor- Soriano and Magin Soriano, the owners of the two parcels of land located in Macabucod, Aliaga, Nueva Ecija. The properties became subject to Operation Land Transfer (OLT) and were valued by the Land Bank and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) at P10,000.00/hectare. Contending that such valuation was too low compared to existing valuations of agricultural lands, the heirs commenced an action for just compensation. They asked that a final valuation of the properties be pegged at P1,800,000.00, based on Administrative Order No. 61, Series of 1992 and R.A. No. 6657.
The RTC ordered Land Bank to pay the heirs the amount P1,227,571.10 as just compensation.
Land Bank appealed to the CA. The CA denied the petition.
Hence, Land Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
During the pendency of the appeal, both parties entered into an agreement re-evaluating the cost of the parcels of land. Thus, Land Bank submitted a manifestation informing the High Court that the parties have already filed their Joint Motion to Approve submitting their Agreement dated November 29, 2012.ISSUE: Should the present appeal to the Supreme Court be dismissed?
HELD: The Agreement was a compromise that the parties freely and voluntarily entered into for the purpose of finally settling their dispute in this case. Under Art. 2028 of the Civil Code, a compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Accordingly, a compromise is either judicial, if the objective is to put an end to a pending litigation, or extrajudicial, if the objective is to avoid a litigation.
As a contract, a compromise is perfected by mutual consent. However, a judicial compromise, while immediately binding between the parties upon its execution, is not executory until it is approved by the court and reduced to a judgment. The validity of a compromise is dependent upon its compliance with the requisites and principles of contracts dictated by law. Also, the terms and conditions of a compromise must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order. A review of the terms of the Agreement, indicates that it is a judicial compromise because the parties intended it to terminate their pending litigation by fully settling their dispute.