Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 555 views

    DUÑGO v. Lopena Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Lloyd P. Maquilan
    The petitioner Dungo and Gonzales purchased land from the respondents, making a down payment with the agreement to pay the balance in installments. Dungo and Gonzales executed a mortgage on the land in favor of the respondents to secure payment. Dungo and Gonzales then defaulted on the first installment, prompting the respondents to file for foreclosure. A compromise agreement was later signed extending the payment deadline, but Dungo did not personally sign. The court found that while a third party cannot normally bind another to a compromise agreement without authorization, Dungo had effectively ratified the agreement by accepting its benefits and not promptly repudiating his attorney's actions. Therefore, the compromise agreement and subsequent foreclosure proceedings were valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DUÑGO v. Lopena Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Lloyd P. Maquilan
    555 views2 pages
    The petitioner Dungo and Gonzales purchased land from the respondents, making a down payment with the agreement to pay the balance in installments. Dungo and Gonzales executed a mortgage on the land in favor of the respondents to secure payment. Dungo and Gonzales then defaulted on the first installment, prompting the respondents to file for foreclosure. A compromise agreement was later signed extending the payment deadline, but Dungo did not personally sign. The court found that while a third party cannot normally bind another to a compromise agreement without authorization, Dungo had effectively ratified the agreement by accepting its benefits and not promptly repudiating his attorney's actions. Therefore, the compromise agreement and subsequent foreclosure proceedings were valid.

    Original Description:

    DUÑGO v. Lopena Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner Dungo and Gonzales purchased land from the respondents, making a down payment with the agreement to pay the balance in installments. Dungo and Gonzales executed a mortgage on the land in favor of the respondents to secure payment. Dungo and Gonzales then defaulted on the first installment, prompting the respondents to file for foreclosure. A compromise agreement was later signed extending the payment deadline, but Dungo did not personally sign. The court found that while a third party cannot normally bind another to a compromise agreement without authorization, Dungo had effectively ratified the agreement by accepting its benefits and not promptly repudiating his attorney's actions. Therefore, the compromise agreement and subsequent foreclosure proceedings were valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    555 views2 pages

    DUÑGO v. Lopena Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Lloyd P. Maquilan
    The petitioner Dungo and Gonzales purchased land from the respondents, making a down payment with the agreement to pay the balance in installments. Dungo and Gonzales executed a mortgage on the land in favor of the respondents to secure payment. Dungo and Gonzales then defaulted on the first installment, prompting the respondents to file for foreclosure. A compromise agreement was later signed extending the payment deadline, but Dungo did not personally sign. The court found that while a third party cannot normally bind another to a compromise agreement without authorization, Dungo had effectively ratified the agreement by accepting its benefits and not promptly repudiating his attorney's actions. Therefore, the compromise agreement and subsequent foreclosure proceedings were valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    DUÑGO v.

    LOPENA

    FACTS:

     Petitioner Dungo and once Rodrigo Gonzales purchased 3 parcels of land from the respondents. Out of the total price down payment
    was made with the agreement that the balance would be paid in 6 monthly installments.
     To secure the payment of the balance Anastacio Duñgo and Rodrigo S. Gonzales, the vendees, on September 11, 1958, executed
    over the same 3 parcels of land Deed of Real Estate Mortgage in favor of the respondent Adriano Lopena and Rosa Ramos.
    - duly registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds Rizal, with the condition that failure of the vendees to pay any of
    the installments on their maturity dates shall automatically cause the entire unpaid balance to become due and
    demandable.
    - Vendess defaulted on the first installment which prompted respondents to file a complaint for the foreclosure of the
    mortgage.
    - Before trial, a compromise agreement was submitted to the lower court for approval. This was signed by the respondent
    Lopena and Rosa Ramos and Gonzales. Dungo did not sign which is the petitioner on this case, but Gonzales represented
    that his signature was both for himself and for Dungo.
    - Dungo’s counsel of record was present at the preparation of the compromise agreement and affixed his own signature.
     Compromise agreement states should the defendants fail to pay the mortgage indebtedness on the specific date, judgments of
    foreclosure shall be entered. Period of redemption is waived.

     This compromise agreement was approved by the lower court on the same day it was submitted, January 15, 1960.
     When Anastacio Duñgo (herein petitioner) and Rodrigo S. Gonzales failed to pay the balance of their indebtedness on June 30, 1960,
    herein respondents Lopena and Ramos filed on July 5, 1960, a Motion for the Sale of Mortgaged Property. As a result, the lower
    court granted the above motion on July 19, 1960, and ordered the sale of the mortgaged property.
     The 3 parcels of land were sold at a public auction. The sheriff’s sale was later confirmed by the lower court. Petitioner did not file
    any opposition.
     On August 31, 1960, Anastacio Duñgo filed a motion to set aside all the proceedings on the ground that the compromise agreement
    dated January 15, 1960 was void ab initio with respect to him because he did not sign the same. Trial court denied the motion.

     Upon denial of the said motion to set aside, Anastacio Duñgo filed a Notice of Appeal from the approval of the foreclosure sale.
    Respondents opposed, saying that the judgment was not appealable because it was rendered by virtue of the compromise agreement.

    ISSUE: Was the compromise agreement of January 15, 1960, the Order of the same date approving the same, and, all the
    proceedings subsequent thereto, valid or void insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned? NO.

    DECISION: A compromise in itself is a contract.1 Under Art 1878, a third person cannot bind another to a compromise agreement unless
    the third person has obtained a special power of attorney for that purpose from the party intended to be bound.

    However, although the Civil Code expressly requires a special power of attorney so that one may compromise an interest of another, it is
    incorrect to conclude that its absence renders the compromise agreement void. It is merely unenforceable. Resulting from its nature as a
    contract. Dungo had already ratified the compromise agreement as established by the Tri-Party Agreement where it was stipulated that the
    PAYOR submits and binds himself to the force and effect of the order of CFI. When it appears that the client, on becoming aware of the
    compromise and judgment thereon, fails to repudiate promptly the action of his attorney, he will not be heard to contest its validity.
    Although Dungo was not a signatory, the compromise agreement benefited him in that the agreement extended the date of maturity.

    Petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by petitioner is dismissed.

    You might also like