[G.R. No. 146887. April 18, 2001]

SPS. CENIDOZA, et al. vs. DBP, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 18 2001.

G.R. No. 146887 (Sps. Herman Cenidoza and Pacita Cenidoza and Alcantara Realty Development Corporation vs. Development Bank of the Philippines and Miguel Manuson, et al.)

Petitioner Alcantara Development Corporation assails the resolution of the Court of Appeals which denied petitioner’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment Based on the Compromise Agreement on the ground that the said agreement dated December 22, 1999 has become final and executory and has the effect of res judicata.

The present controversy stemmed from an action for specific performance filed by the spouses Herman and Pacita Cenidoza against private respondent Development Bank of the Philippines to compel DBP to execute a deed of absolute sale over the Binangonan Medical Center. The trial court decided in favor of the spouses Cenidoza.

On November 22, 1991, Herman Cenidoza died. On November 6, 1996, during the pendency of the appeal interposed by the DBP, the wife, Pacita, died, but not before she was able to execute a Deed of Assignment with Assumption of Obligation dated February 15, 1996 over the subject property in favor of private respondent Manuson. Thereafter, a compromise agreement dated December 22, 1999 was filed by the parties, the deceased spouses represented by private respondent Dr. Manuson as the assignee of the rights, interest, and participation of the deceased spouses in the subject property.

On February 4, 2000, the Court of Appeals approved said agreement and rendred judgment based thereon. On April 17, 2000, petitioner Alcantara filed a petition and/or motion to set aside judgment but the same was denied.

Thus, the instant petition which must likewise fail.

The Court finds no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals in denying petitioner’s motion to set aside judgment. Although the instant petition is craftily entitled “Sps. Herman Cenidoza and Pacita Cenidoza and Alcantara Realty Development Corporation, petitioners,” Alcantara Realty Development Corporation is devoid of any legal personality to seek the setting aside of the assailed judgment because Alcantara is not a party to the controversy. Neither can Alcantara ask to be substituted in place of the deceased spouses Cenidoza, for the simple reason that it is not the latter’s successor-in-interest, considering that Alcantara is a mere creditor. To protect its interest, Alcantara should have intervened when the controversy was still pending with the trial court and not at this late in the day when a judgment on the compromise agreement had already been rendered. It is well-settled that a judicial compromise has the effect of res judicata and is immediately executory and not appealable unless a motion to set aside the same is filed on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, in which event an appeal maybe filed from an order denying the same (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 171 [1998]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court