Rules On Execution Of Compromise Agreement

[8] Overall, respondents, including Oscar Camerino (Oscar), who did not participate in the compromise agreement, are referred to as “farmers.” In this case, for certiorari and prohibition with injunction, is extracted from the records that the appeal judge of the Agusan Magistrates Court ruled (Annex “A”) in a court opened on January 28, 1959, on the basis of this judgment on a compromise agreement between the parties.chanroblesviruallibrary Virtual Right Library On October 23, 2006, the Court of Appeal decided to find [SMS] THE CA concluded that this case was essentially comparable to the R.M.P. 171754. Moreover, the compromise agreement could not implement the earlier decision of the Court of Justice in G.R. No. 161029, since only four out of five parties executed the agreement. Certainly, after the finality of the Court of Justice`s decision in G.R. No. 161029 of 19 January 2005, [SMS] submitted various petitions and motions which, for the most part, prevented the implementation of the above decision. However, we do not agree with CA that the immediate case is repugnant, as it pre-filed an appeal to quash the judgment, which essentially included the same facts, questions and facilities. While the objective [SMS`] at the time of filing the immediate case is the same as in R.G. 171754 (which stems from the motion for nullity of the judgment), that is to prevent the execution of the decision of January 19, 2005, there is still no shopping forum.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING sind die Entscheidung und die Entscheidung des Court Appeals vom 23. Oktober 2006 bzw. 29. Juni 2007 in der Fassung CA-G.R. SP Nr. 92994 SET ASIDE. The execution letter, issued on 22 August 2005 by the Muntinlupa City Regional Court, Branch 256, in Civil Case 95-020, is this QUASHED. title transfer certificate 15895; 15896 and 15897 on behalf of Oscar Camerino, Efren Camerino, Cornelio Mantile, Domingo Enriquez and Nolasco del Rosario are attached CANCELLED, and TCT No. 120541, 120542 and 123872, on behalf of Springsun Management Systems Corporation, the petitioner`s predecessor here, SM CORPORATION Systems, REINSTATED. The Tribunal also addresses RETURN to the Intervenor, Mariano Nocom, the amounts of P9,790,612.00 and P147,059.18 paid by him as a withdrawal or commission price. In failing to specify the compromise agreements, the RTC stated that the withdrawal judgment was already final at the time of their implementation, so that no proceedings were suspended.

In addition, the amount of P300,000.00 that was sent by SMS to each of the four farmers was unacceptable. [33] The petitioner Ago fell behind with his payment and thus, 1958 interviewed Grace Park Engineering, Inc.