You are on page 1of 2

I-PARTIES Feliciana Bumanlag and Flaviano Bumanlag, petitioners Hon.

Anacleto Alzate, Tomasa Bumanlag & Silvino Espugado, respondents II-PRIOR JUDGMENT The Court of First Instance of Tarlac held that the compromise agreement submitted by both parties in an earlier judgment is not void for having signed by a lawyer without authority to do so, but is merely unenforceable and may therefore be ratified by said party expressly or impliedly. III-THEORIES OF THE PARTIES Petitioners contend that said agreement(compromise agreement) is void because the compromise agreement had been signed in their behalf by their lawyer who had not been authorized by them to enter into such agreement, hence, res judicata cannot be applied in their present petition. Respondents on the other hand contend that the doctrine of res judicata clearly bars the present case since some years before a final and executor judgment(compromise agreement) involving the same parties, same subject matter, and same causes of action had already been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. IV-OBJECTIVES OF THE PARTIES Petitioners seek to effect the suit they filed against herein private respondents for partition of the lots they inherited from their deceased father. Respondents seek to dismiss the suit on the ground that the action has been barred by res judicata. V-KEY FACTS Petitioners sued herein private respondents for partition of the lots inherited by both parties from their deceased father. However, there was a compromise agreement embodied in a judgment wherein the compromise agreement was signed by the lawyer of the petitioners who did so without authorization. Respondents moved to dismiss contending that such action was already barred by the compromise agreement, hence the doctrine of res judicata applies. Petitioners argued that the compromise agreement is void since it was signed witout their authorization, hence, it did not bind them. VI-ISSUE 1. Whether or not the compromise agreement signed by a lawyer without authority is void VII-HOLDINGS No. It is not void but is merely unenforceable which can be ratified by the party expressly or impliedly. VIII-RATIO DECIDENDI The compromise agreement is not void but merely unenforceable. The petitioners by their silence for sixteen (16) years and by their overt acts of exchanging or bartering some of the lots awarded to them with some of the lots of the private respondents have doubtless ratified the act of their attorney; ergo, the requisites of res judicata being all present, the principle applies to the instant case. One final point. The argument that the partition in the first case was not one with metes and bounds is bankrupt. There was such a physical and actual partition, not merely a metaphysical one.

IX-DISPOSITON/FALLO

2 In the instant case (which has been brought to Us by certiorari assailing an Order of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac in Civil Case No. petitioners contend that said judgment is void because the compromise agreement had been signed in their behalf by their lawyer who had not been authorized by them to enter into such agreement. and SILVINO ESPUGADO. the compromise agreement is not void but merely unenforceable. 1976. J.: On January 21. ergo. 1986 FELICIANA BUMANLAG and FLAVIANO BUMANLAG. We hold that a such compromise agreement is merely unenforceable 1 (not void)and may therefore be ratified by said party expressly or implicity. PARAS. petitioners. the requisites of res judicata being all present. ANACLETO B. with costs against petitioners. this Court declared as submitted for decision a case where the principal issue was the validity of a compromise agreement (which subsequently was embodied in a judgment by compromise) where the agreement was signed (on behalf of one of the parties thereto) by a lawyer who did so without authorization if said party or client. There was such a physical and actual partition. but is merely unenforceable and may therefore be ratified by said party expressly or impliedly. ALZATE. and the assailed Order is hereby AFFIRMED ruling that the compromise agreement submitted by both parties in an earlier judgment is not void for having signed by a lawyer without authority to do so. not merely a metaphysical one. WHEREFORE. Court of first Instance of Tarlac. respondents. same subject matter. Full text G. et al. The petitioners by their silence for sixteen (16) years and by their overt acts of exchanging or bartering some of the lots awarded to them with some of the lots of the private respondents have doubtless ratified the act of their attorney. Branch II.This petition is DISMISSED.") herein petitioners sued herein private respondents for partition of the lots inherited by both parties from their deceased father. SO ORDERED. 4912 entitled "Bumanlag. One final point. L-39119 September 26. and the assailed Order is hereby AFFIRMED.R. HON. Bumanlag. and same causes of action had already been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and that therefore the doctrine of res judicata clearly bars the present case. consequently there can be no res judicata. this petition is DISMISSED. v. vs. . as Presiding Judge. TOMASA BUMANLAG. The argument that the partition in the first case was not one with metes and bounds is bankrupt. As already intimated hereinabove. et al. respondents however moved to dismiss on the ground that some years before a final and executory judgment (based on a compromise agreement) involving the same parties. No. the principle applies to the instant case.