Periquet Jr. vs. Iac 238 Scra 697
Periquet Jr. vs. Iac 238 Scra 697
Periquet Jr. vs. Iac 238 Scra 697
Ponente: KAPUNAN
Dispositive Portion:
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the decision of
respondent court is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the
trial court is AFFIRMED subject to the elimination of the award of P10,000.00
to Felix R. Francisco. Costs against private respondents.
Citation Ref:
219 SCRA 321 | 148 SCRA 677 | 114 SCRA 443 | 138 SCRA 78 | 18 SCRA
981 | 23 SCRA 29 | 29 SCRA 791 | 70 SCRA 204 | 29 Phil. 470 | 7 SCRA
808 | 7 SCRA 923 | 181 SCRA 9 | 181 SCRA 285
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Periquet, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
and cannot be reviewed save only when the finding is clearly shown to be
erroneous.
Same; Compromise Agreements; A compromise agreement, once approved by the
court, cannot and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery.
Finally, we agree with the petitioner that respondent court erred in disturbing the
proceedings conducted in Special Proceedings Nos. Q-10004 and Q-11074, and the
decrees and orders issued pursuant thereto. It cannot be denied that a compromise
agreement was entered into by the parties in that case in order to end the suit
already filed in court. The same was approved by the trial court in the order dated
December 20, 1969. Well-settled is the rule that a compromise agreement, once
approved by the court, cannot and should not be disturbed except for vices of
consent or forgery, it being the obvious purpose of such compromise agreement to
settle, once and for all, the claims of the parties, and bar all future disputes and
controversies thereon.
Same; Same; Parties; A person who is not a party to an agreement cannot seek the
amendment or modification of the same.A compromise agreement cannot bind
persons who are not parties thereto. Neither would a person not party to a
compromise agreement be entitled to enforce the same. Similarly, a person who is
not a party to an agreement, as in this case, cannot seek the amendment or
modification of the same. Neither can a court of law rule that the compromise
agreement be amended and modified pursuant only to the wishes of a person not
party to the said agreement.
PETITION for review of a decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court, Fourth
Civil Cases Division.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Ledesma, Guytingco, Velasco & Associates and Conrado Ayuyao for petitioner.
Albino B. Achas for private respondents.
Manuel Y. Macias intervenor.
KAPUNAN, J.:
Spouses Fernando Periquet and Petra Francisco were left childless after the death of
their only child, Elvira,1 so they took
_______________
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Periquet, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
and residing at Lagao, Gen. Santos, Cotabato, Philippines, hereinafter referred to as
the ASSIGNOR,
and
FERNANDO PERIQUET, JR., Filipino, of legal age, single, and residing at 24 Ilang-
ilang, Quezon City, hereinafter referred to as the ASSIGNEE.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the ASSIGNOR is a brother and one of the intestate heirs of the late Petra
Francisco Vda. de Periquet who died last July 28, 1966 while a resident of 24 Ilang-
ilang, Quezon City;
WHEREAS, the ASSIGNOR knows for a fact that said deceased caused the
preparation of a will which she was not able to sign in view of her sudden and
untimely death;
WHEREAS, the ASSIGNOR knows for a fact that the said deceased under the Last
Will and Testament which she has caused to be prepared but which she was not able
to sign, has given, devised and bequeathed to Dr. Fernando Periquet, Jr. her entire
estate with the exception of the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) which
she has bequeathed as follows:
To Felix Francisco
P10,000.00
To Dolores Periquet
10,000.00
To Carmen Periquet
10,000.00
To Belen Periquet de Jesus
10,000.00
To Lydia Periquet
5,000.00
To Jose Periquet, Jr.
5,000.00
Total -P50,000.00
WHEREAS, the ASSIGNOR desires to honor, respect and give full effect to the above-
mentioned last wishes of the deceased Petra Francisco Vda. de Periquet with
regards to the disposition of her estate;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the aforementioned desire of the
ASSIGNOR to honor, respect and give full effect to the last wishes of the deceased
Petra Francisco Vda. de Periquet as shown in her unsigned last will and testament,
the ASSIGNOR has assigned, transferred and conveyed and by these presents do
hereby assign, transfer and convey unto the ASSIGNEE all his rights, titles and
interests in and to the intestate estate of the late Petra Francisco Vda. de Periquet.
701
3 Exhibits 1 and B.
4 Exhibit 2.
5 Exhibit C.
6 Exhibits H and I.
702
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Periquet, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Francisco did the same.7 Florentino Zaragoza and Alberta Betty Zaragoza-Morgan,
however, refused to execute deeds of assignment in favor of petitioner.
On December 13, 1969, petitioner entered into a compromise agreement with the
Zaragozas and the intervenors, the Periquets, in Special Proceedings Nos. Q-10004
and Q-11074. The compromise agreement reads in full:
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
COME NOW the parties in the above-entitled cases, assisted by their respective
counsels and to this Honorable Court, respectfully submit the following Compromise
Agreement:
1. That all parties herein hereby acknowledge the validity of the Last Will and
Testament of Fernando Periquet dated March 28, 1940 which was admitted to
probate by this Honorable Court on May 28, 1966, and that the sole and only testate
heir of the late Fernando Periquet at the time of his death on March 20, 1966 was
his wife Petra Francisco Vda. de Periquet who died intestate on July 28, 1966;
2. That in consideration of the total sum of P67,500.00 to be paid as hereinafter
specified the INTERVENORS herein agree to withdraw their Motion for Intervention
and hereby waive any and all claims, rights, interest, participation, actions, causes
of actions in or against the estates of Fernando Periquet and Petra Francisco Vda. de
Periquet, their heirs, successors in interest, administrators and assigns;
3. That in consideration of the total amount of P67,500.00 to be paid as hereinafter
specified, Florentino Zaragoza, Alberta (Betty) Zaragoza Morgan, Zacarias Zaragoza
and Gloria Nunez, (hereinafter referred to as the ZARAGOZAS) hereby assign,
transfer and waive in favor of Dr. Fernando Periquet, Jr. all their rights, title, interest,
share and participation in and to the intestate estate of Petra Francisco Vda. de
Periquet;
4. That the ZARAGOZAS hereby acknowledge the validity of the assignments of
hereditary rights in the estate of Petra Francisco Vda. de Periquet executed by Marta
Francisco Reyes, Felix R. Francisco, Joseph Francisco, Felix Francisco, Zacarias
Zaragoza and Gloria Nunez (all intestate heirs of Petra Francisco Vda. de Periquet) in
favor of Dr. Fernando Periquet, Jr.;
5. That the payment of P67,500.00 to the ZARAGOZAS includes the payment to
Zacarias Zaragoza and Gloria Nunez of the balance due
_______________
7 Exhibits L and M.
703
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Periquet, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
10. That the final amount of P30,000.00 shall be paid to the Law Office of LEDESMA,
GUYTINGCO & ASSOCIATES in full settlement of their services rendered in the
settlement of these two estates, of which P25,000.00 shall be paid by the estates
upon the approval of this Compromise Agreement and the balance upon the
termination of these two cases;
11. That the payment of the sum of P67,500.00 to the INTERVENORS and the same
amount to the ZARAGOZAS shall be withdrawn from the funds of the estate of
Fernando Periquet deposited with the various banks and paid to said parties or their
designated representative upon the approval by this Honorable Court of this
Compromise Agreement. The INTERVENORS hereby individually authorize and
empower Miss Dolores Periquet to receive and receipt for any and all sums due
them under the Compromise Agreement. The ZARAGOZAS likewise hereby
individually authorize and empower Mr. Florentino Zaragoza to receive and receipt
for any and all sums due them under this Compromise Agreement;
12. That all claims which have not been paid in full per Motion of Special
Administrator through his counsel dated May 20, 1969 shall be paid immediately
upon approval of this Compromise Agreement;
13. That all residue of the two estates, real and personal, shall be adjudicated,
assigned and transferred to the name of Dr. Fernando Periquet, Jr. upon the approval
of this Compromise Agreement;
14. That in lieu of a surety bond in the amount of P30,000.00 Dr. Fernando Periquet,
Jr. shall be restricted from assigning, transferring or conveying Lot 1, Block 33
comprising of 441 sq. m. and covered by T.C.T. No. 25144, Q.C., which is one of the
real properties adjudicated to him under this Compromise Agreement, for a period
of twelve months as his portion of the security for any unpaid claim that may
appear within the said twelve months period; the said surety undertaking shall be
duly annotated in said title;
15. That in the event any of the heirs who have assigned their hereditary rights to
Dr. Fernando Periquet, Jr. successfully repudiates or impugns the validity of the
assignment they have executed in favor of the latter, the INTERVENORS and the
ZARAGOZAS agree to a proportionate reduction of the amounts due them under this
Compromise Agreement or to a proportionate return of the amounts received by
them.
16. That Intervenor Aurelio Periquet hereby waives, assigns and transfers all and
whatever rights, interests and participation which he may have in the estate of
Fernando Periquet and Petra Francisco Vda. de Periquet in favor of Dolores Periquet,
for which reason, he shall not be liable for any claim of any kind or whatever nature,
the same being transferred likewise to his assignee, Dolores
705
8 Exhibit 3.
9 Rollo, p. 74; RTC Decision, pp. 22-23, penned by then Judge Eduardo Montenegro,
now Court of Appeals Associate Justice.
706
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Periquet, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
On appeal to the then Intermediate Appellate Court, the said judgment was
modified to read:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered (a) modifying the decision of the Court a
quo in the sense that the Assignment of Hereditary Rights is hereby annulled or
rescinded and appellant completely relieved from the legal effects thereof, (b)
declaring and holding appellant FELIX R. FRANCISCO the owner of one-fourth (1/4)
of all the estate of Petra Francisco Vda. de Periquet, made up of the residue of the
combined estates of the deceased spouses Fernando Periquet and Petra Francisco
Vda. de Periquet, which residue must be deemed to include the amounts paid to
various other heirs and claimants and to appellee Dr. Fernando Periquets counsel as
well as the remainder of the estate adjudicated to appellee Dr. Fernando Periquet
himself in Special Proceedings Nos. Q-10004 and Q-11074 of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Branch IV sitting in Quezon City, (c) ordering defendant-appellee
to pay unto the plaintiff-appellant the sum of P20,000.00 as moral damages, (d)
ordering defendant-appellee to pay the sum of P5,000.00 as exemplary damages
and P10,000.00 as attorneys fees.
Costs against defendant-appellee.
SO ORDERED.10
A motion for reconsideration of the above-quoted decision was filed by petitioner
Periquet but the same was denied for lack of merit on February 1, 1985,11 hence,
the instant petition for review.
Petitioner Fernando Periquet, Jr. assails the respondent courts decision on the
following grounds, to wit:
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN DISTURBING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS,
DECREES AND PROCEEDINGS TAKEN IN SPECIAL PROCEEDING NOS. Q-10004 AND
Q-11074 OF THE THEN COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON CITY.
FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN ANNULLING OR RESCINDING THE DEED OF
ASSIGNMENT OF HEREDITARY RIGHTS AND RELIEVING FELIX R. FRANCISCO
COMPLETELY FROM THE LEGAL EFFECTS THEREOF.
FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND
ATTORNEYS FEES TO FELIX R. FRANCISCO.12
Meanwhile, on December 28, 1980, private respondent Felix R. Francisco passed
away, hence, in a resolution dated September 23, 1985, the court allowed his heirs
to be substituted in his stead. In the same resolution, we likewise recognized
Manuel Macias, the first counsel of Felix Francisco, as an intervenor in the instant
petition.
Petitioner Fernando Periquet, Jr. contends that the execution of the assignment of
hereditary rights in his favor by Felix R. Francisco was not tainted with fraud,
deception, gross misrepresentation, or undue influence because the latter read the
instrument, understood its import and later signed the same freely and voluntarily.
There was likewise true and valid consideration in the execution of the instrument.
On his part, Felix R. Francisco alleges that petitioner committed a number of
unmistakable acts of fraud. He claims that he was
_______________
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Periquet, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
rushed into signing the instrument he never read nor was explained to him. He
further contends that petitioner abused the confidence he reposed on him when the
latter failed to make good his promise to give him P10,000.00 as consideration for
the execution of the deed of assignment.
We sustain the petitioner.
The kind of fraud that will vitiate a contract refers to those insidious words or
machinations resorted to by one of the contracting parties to induce the other to
enter into a contract which without them he would not have agreed to.13 It must
have a determining influence on the consent of the victim.14 The will of the victim,
in effect, is maliciously vitiated by means of a false appearance of reality.15
In the case at bench, no such fraud was employed by herein petitioner. Resultantly,
the assignment of hereditary rights executed by Felix Francisco in favor of herein
petitioner is valid and effective.
Felix Francisco could not be considered to have been deceived into signing the
subject deed of assignment for the following reasons, viz:
First, the assignment was executed and signed freely and voluntarily by Felix
Francisco in order to honor, respect and give full effect to the last wishes of his
deceased sister, Petra. The same was read by him and was further explained by
Atty. Diosdado Guytingco.16 Furthermore, witnesses for petitioner, Antonio Eugenio
and Elias Fermin, who also served as witnesses in the execution and signing of the
deed of assignment testified to the foregoing.17 They declared that Felix Francisco
was neither forced nor intimidated to sign the assignment of hereditary rights. He
did so out of his own free will and volition.
Second, there was valid cause or consideration in the execution of the assignment
of hereditary rights. Contrary to the trial courts finding that the amount of
P10,000.00 as promised by Dr.
_______________
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Periquet, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
the estate of the deceased in the period between 196621 and 1970,22 thus, raising
the incontrovertible conclusion that fraud never attended the execution of the deed
of assignment. He decided to holler foul and raise the defense of fraud only upon
learning that a compromise agreement was entered into by the petitioner, the
Francisco-Zaragozas, and the Periquets.
Moreover, fraud is a question of fact and the circumstances constituting the same
must be alleged and proved in the court below.23 The allegations of fraud,
deception, gross misrepresentation, or undue influence were not proved in court,
hence, the same must fail. Fraud and other vices of consent must be established by
full, clear, and convincing evidence.24 Therefore, the finding of the trial court as to
its existence or non-existence is final and cannot be reviewed save only when the
finding is clearly shown to be erroneous. We perceive no error in the trial courts
finding that the deed of assignment is not tainted with fraud. We reproduce said
finding with approval:
(P)laintiffs evidence which consist solely of his oral testimony and the documentary
evidence marked as exhibits, fail miserably to establish the gross
misrepresentation, deception, fraud, grave abuse of confidence, mistake and undue
influence allegedly employed on him to secure his consent to and signature on the
assignment of hereditary rights.
In the first place, plaintiff had in his deposition indeed given inconsistent statements
which cast serious doubts on his credibility. On direct examination, plaintiff declared
that he signed the deed of assignment of hereditary rights in the house of the
deceased (referring to the deceased Petra Francisco Vda. de Periquet) at Ilang-Ilang
(Deposition, Exhibit A, pp. 13-14). Later plaintiff declared that he signed the
document at New Manila, Quezon City (Id., p. 19). He declared that the assignment
of hereditary rights was signed at midnight (Id., p. 13). Later on cross-examination,
plaintiff declared that it was daytime when he signed (Id., p. 10). Also on direct
examination,
_______________
21 Execution of assignment.
22 Institution of the instant action.
23 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ayala SecuritiesCorporation, 70 SCRA 204,
207 [1976].
24 Centenera v. Palicio, 29 Phil. 470 [1915]; Butte v. Ong Sui Niu, (C.A.) 51 Off. Gaz.
5704 [1955].
711
P10,000.00
To Dolores Periquet
10,000.00
To Carmen Periquet
10,000.00
To Belen Periquet de Jesus
10,000.00
To Lydia Periquet
5,000.00
To Jose Periquet, Jr.
5,000.00
P50,000.00
and the fact is undisputed that defendant Fernando Periquet, Jr., was since he was
just a few days old adopted (though not judicially) by the deceased spouses
Fernando Periquet and Petra Francisco, and lived with, served and cared for the said
spouses for forty-six (46) years up to the time of their demise. Just prior to her
death, Petra Francisco Vda. de Periquet caused the preparation of a will leaving her
entire estate, with the exception of certain legacies, to defendant, but death
supervened and the will was left unsigned.
It must also be noted, and this is also important, that on the same occasion that
plaintiff signed the deed of assignment of hereditary rights, Exhibit B, Marta
Francisco Reyes also signed a similar assignment of hereditary rights, Exhibit 2-
Periquet.
The reason why plaintiff later changed his mind is also disclosed in his testimony on
cross-examination. The reason is, Because when I was sent a telegram by my niece
Gloria Zaragoza wherein it is stated
712
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Periquet, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
that I have a share in the amount of P100,000.00, the telegram is in the possession
of the defendant, he did not return it to me anymore after I have shown it to him.
(Deposition, Exh. A, p. 42). To a further question on cross-examination, My question
is this Mr. Francisco, if the doctor complied with his promise here and gave you the
P10,000.00 you will not complain anymore, is it not?, plaintiffs answer was, No, I
will complain too. To the follow-up question, Why?, the answer was, To complete
the P100,000.00. The succeeding question was, Who told you that you deserve
P100,000.00?, the answer was, My niece who received P100,000.00 too, Gloria
Zaragoza (Deposition, Exh. A, p. 81).
Assuming that plaintiff did not know or was not aware of the contents and import of
the assignment of hereditary rights, Exhibit B, when he signed the same on the
night of August 3, 1966, it is impossible he did not come to know at least the import
or the consequences of the same a few days after. The evidence is unrebutted that
plaintiff was defendants go between or intermediary in securing from Zacarias
Zaragoza and Gloria Zaragoza-Nunez the latters consent and signatures to the
assignment of hereditary rights, Exhibits M and I. On this point defendant testified, I
was with Felix Francisco. He was the one who was very instrumental in helping me
out on looking where these cousins of mine live and at the same time to convince
them to sign the assignment of hereditary rights in my favor for he has signed a
similar document (t.s.n.Rivera, Oct. 23, 1973, pp. 31-32). Plaintiff in fact was with
defendant in Iloilo when defendant secured the signatures of Zacarias Zaragoza and
Gloria Zaragoza Nunez to the assignments of hereditary rights, Exhibits H and I, on
August 11, 1966eight (8) days after plaintiff signed the assignment of hereditary
rights, Exh. B. Plaintiff was also with defendant when the latter approached
Florentino Zaragoza but Florentino refused to sign (t.s.n.-Rivera, Oct. 23, 1973, pp.
30-31; 33). The point is, if plaintiff was in truth deceived by defendant, if it were
that he had given his consent to and signature on the assignment of hereditary
rights, Exhibit B, because of gross misrepresentation and deception and fraud,
grave abuse of confidence, mistake and undue influence employed on him by
defendant, he would not have waited until May 16, 1970almost four (4) years
after he signed Exhibit B, to file this case. At the expense of being repetitious, it is
impossible, after helping defendant get the signatures of Zacarias Zaragoza (the
last of whom refused) to similar assignment of hereditary rights that plaintiff did not
become aware at least from that time of the import and consequence of the
assignment of hereditary rights he signed. After the widow Petra Francisco Vda. de
Periquet died without having signed the will which she had asked defendants
lawyer to prepare, the deeds of assignment of hereditary rights which plaintiff,
among others were asked to sign, was the last resorted (sic) to keep the estate of
the
713
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Manila Int'l. Airport Authority vs. Commission on Audit
not party to the said agreement.
All told, the assignment of hereditary rights executed by the late Felix R. Francisco
in favor of petitioner Dr. Fernando Periquet, Jr. is hereby declared valid and effective.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the decision of respondent court
is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED
subject to the elimination of the award of P10,000.00 to Felix R. Francisco. Costs
against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Quiason, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, Judgment reversed and set aside.
Note.A person not having been impleaded in a case cannot be held subject to the
writ of execution issued in said case, let alone ousted from the ownership and
possession of the property, without first being duly afforded its day in court.
(Asuncion vs. Court of Appeals, SCRA [G.R. No. 109125, 02 December 1994])
o0o
Periquet, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 238 SCRA 697, G.R. No. 69996
December 5, 1994