7/25/2019 Olego vs. Rebueno

1/3

G.R. No. L-39350 October 29, 1975

CENONA OLEGO, petitioner,

vs.

HON. ALFREDO REBUENO, J!"e o# t$e Cort o#F%r&t '(&t)(ce o# C)*)r%(e& +r, Br)(c$ ' )(!

A. /EDRO +ERANO, respondents

Facts:

Pedro D. Servano fled a complaint against

Cenona Olego and asked or a declaration as to

the legality o his title to a residential lot.

He alleged that he ac!ired the lot "y p!rchase

and that he and his predecessors had possessedit en concepto de dueosince time immemorial

and that ater he had ac!ired the lot, his

possession #as dist!r"ed "y Cenona Olego, #ho

claimed to "e the o#ner o the lot.

Cenona Olego in her ans#er denied that

Servano o#ned and possessed any land and

pleaded the deense that she #as the $a"sol!te

o#ner and la#!l possessor$ o the land.

%he parties ho#ever s!"mitted a compromise

agreement #herein the deendant admits the

allegation o the plainti&'s complaint as to his

claim o o#nership o the land descri"ed therein

in said complaint and that (!dgment "e

rendered declaring the plainti& the o#ner.

)ter *+ years, Servano fled in the lo#er co!rt a

$petition or contempt$ against Cenona Olego

and her children and that Cenona Olego and her

children prevented Servano rom having $the

peace!l !se and en(oyment$ o said land that

they "randed the decision as $ake$ and $not

#orthy o respect$, and that they occ!pied a

portion o the land and dist!r"ed Servano's$property rights.$

Servano prayed that Cenona Olego and her

children "e p!nished or contempt o co!rt and

ordered to pay damages to him.

Cenona Olego fled a motion to dismiss the

contempt charge. %he motion #as "ased on the

gro!nds -a that the amica"le settlement #as

o"tained thro!gh ra!d and misrepresentation,

-" that the e/ec!tion o the (!dgment #as

"arred "y the stat!te o limitations, and -c that

the co!rt had lost (!risdiction over the case.

0t #as pointed o!t in the motion that the

(!dgment does not re!ire Cenona Olego to

vacate the land or deliver its possession to

Servano that, "eing illiterate, she #as !na#are

that she had signed an amica"le settlement

that she #as never !rnished #ith copies o "oth

the amica"le settlement and the $decision$ o

1an!ary 2, *345 that she #as made to!nderstand that #hat she #as signing #as a

motion or postponement, and that, "eing

ignorant o the decision, she never vacated the

land and she tho!ght that the case #as still to

"e tried.

0ss!es:

7/25/2019 Olego vs. Rebueno

2/3

%he iss!es are -a #hether Cenona Olego co!ld

"e held in contempt o co!rt or not vacating the

land involved in the compromise and -"

#hether the lo#er co!rt's decision sho!ld "e set

aside on the gro!nd o ra!d or co!ld "eenorced ater the e/piration o more than ten

years rom the date o its fnality.

Held:

SC holds that Cenona Olego's ail!re to vacate

the lot co!ld not "e the "asis o a contempt

proceeding against her.

0n the compromise agreement and in thedecision approving it, she #as not ordered to

vacate the lot. 0t #as stip!lated in the

compromise that she admitted )tty. Servano's

o#nership o the lot and $that (!dgment "e

rendered declaring$ him to "e the o#ner

thereo. %he decision approving the compromise

ollo#ed the !s!al pattern o (!dgments in s!ch

cases: ordering the parties to comply #ith the

terms and stip!lations o the compromise.

6here there is no decree or order commanding

acc!sed or anyone else to do or rerain rom

doing or anything, diso"edience o it is

impossi"le. Hence, Cenona Olego co!ld not "e

held g!ilty o contempt o co!rt.

6ith respect to the validity or enorcea"ility o

the lo#er co!rt's (!dgment approving the

compromise, Cenona Olego raised the iss!e o

ra!d. ) compromise may "e ann!lled on the

gro!nd o ra!d and mistake. ) (!dicialcompromise may "e set aside i ra!d vitiated

the consent o a party thereo.

%he e/trinsic ra!d, #hich n!llifes a

compromise, like#ise invalidates the decision

approving it.

%he general r!le is that the ad(!dication o

o#nership does not incl!de the possession o

the property. %he e/ception is that the

ad(!dication o o#nership #o!ld incl!de the

delivery o possession i the deeated party has

not sho#n any right to possess the land

independently o his claim o o#nership #hich

#as re(ected.

7!t then in s!ch a case a #rit o e/ec!tion

#o!ld "e re!ired i the deeated party does not

s!rrender the possession o the property. %he

o#ner sho!ld enorce his right to possess the

land "y asking or a #rit o e/ec!tion #ithin fve

years rom the fnality o the decision. )tty. Servano did not enorce his right to

possess the land #ithin the ten8year period. %o

enorce the (!dgment in his avor "y means o

contempt proceeding ater the e/piration o the

ten8year period #o!ld "e a circ!mvention o the

stat!te o limitations.

7/25/2019 Olego vs. Rebueno

3/3

Considering that the (!dgment against Cenona

Olego is no longer enorcea"le and talking into

acco!nt her imp!tation that the compromise, on

#hich the said (!dgment #as "ased, #as

vitiated "y ra!d and mistake, the said (!dgmentcannot possi"ly a&ect her possession o the

disp!ted land. 9or can it destroy the legal

pres!mption in her avor that as possessor o

the land in the concept o o#ner she has a (!st

title thereto.

%hereore, the lo#er co!rt's order, citing Cenona

Olego or contempt o co!rt, is set aside. %helo#er co!rt's (!dgment o 1an!ary 2, *345 can

no longer "e enorced against Cenona Olego

"eca!se it had already prescri"ed.