Felipe O. Magbanua, et al. vs Rizalino Uy

FELIPE O. MAGBANUA, CARLOS DE LA CRUZ, REMY ARNAIZ, BILLY ARNAIZ, ROLLY ARNAIZ, DOMINGO SALARDA, JULIO CAHILIG and NICANOR LABUEN, Petitioners, versus RIZALINO UY, Respondent.

G.R. No. 161003 | 2005-05-06

Compromise agreement may be entered into at any stage of the case - pending trial, on appeal and even after finality of judgment
A compromise agreement cannot bind a party who did not voluntarily take part in the settlement itself and gave specific individual consent
Quitclaim
Compromise agreement, binding effect
Novation, test of incompatibility
Compromise agreement

D E C I S I O N

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Rights may be waived through a compromise agreement, notwithstanding a final judgment that has already settled the rights of the contracting parties. To be binding, the compromise must be shown to have been voluntarily, freely and intelligently executed by the parties, who had full knowledge of the judgment. Furthermore, it must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy.

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the May 31, 2000 Decision[2] and the October 30, 2003 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in...