[G.R. No. 125082.

September 18, 2000]

ROMEO YU, vs. CA, et al.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 18 2000.
G.R. No. 125082 (Romeo Yu, vs. Court of Appeals and Gabriel Trocio, Jr., respondents.)
Subject of the present petition for review on certiorari is the decision dated December 29, 1995 of the Court of Appeals 1 Eight
Division, penned by Justice Jaime M. Lantin, concurred in by Justices Eduardo G. Montenegro, and Jose C. De la Rama.
denying due course to petitioner's petition for review for being insufficient in substance, and the Resolution dated April 10,
1996 denying the motion for reconsideration.
At the root of the present controversy is the following factual milieu:
Sometime in May of 1993, herein respondent Gabriel L. Trocio, Jr., lodged a complaint for forcible entry against petitioner
Romeo Yu before the Office of the Barangay Captain of Luray 2, Toledo City. 2 Docketed as Barangay Case No. 9329.Respondent Trocio claimed that a portion of his property was included in the portion fenced in by petitioner Yu where a line
of coconut trees stood.
On May 16, 1993, said respondent and petitioner entered into an amicable settlement agreeing that "the fence made of
coconut slabs will not be demolished in the meantime and the parties will wait until the same would rot, but when the fence
will be repaired, the same should be done in such a manner that the line of coconut (in question) shall be outside of the said
fence." 3 The amicable settlement reads: "Ang koral nga slab nga lubi dili lang usa hilabtan, hulatun anus a madugta ug inig
ayo sa koral, ang usa ka laray nga lubi, ipagawas sa maong koral." CA Rollo, Annex B.
On June 25, 1994, respondent discovered that petitioner constructed a concrete fence on the very spot where the old fence
stood, and in the process destroyed the coconut trees. When respondent confronted the petitioner, the latter hurled invectives
at him.
On July 5, 1994, respondent filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution of the Amicable Settlement with the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities of Toledo City, docketed as Barangy Case No. B-05, praying that petitioner be ordered to demolish at his
expense the illegally constructed fence, to pay for the damages caused to the coconut bearing trees, and to clear the area
subject of the controversy.
On September 16, 1994, the MTCC issued an Order 4 Annex "I" to the Petition, Rollo, pp. 205-207.denying respondent's
motion for issuance of a writ of execution. The MTCC ruled that since the motion for execution was filed more than six months
after the date of the amicable settlement, the proper remedy was to file an ordinary action in court for execution of the
judgment.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, rendered a decision
the MTCC decision. The RTC ruled that -

Annex "K" to the Petition, Rollo, pp. 220-222.reversing

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order of the lower court denying the Issuance of a Writ of
Execution is hereby reversed and the said lower court is hereby directed to issue a Writ of Execution for the
enforcement of Compromise Settlement entered into by and between the parties in the Barangay Court on
May 6, 1993.
Hence, petitioner filed a petition for review with the CA. On December 29, 1995, the CA rendered a decision dismissing the
petition for being insufficient in substance and denying due course thereto.
Hence, the present appeal by certiorari.
Petitioner, in his memorandum, 6 Rollo, pp. 280-303.contends that both the CA and RTC erred in allowing the filing of the
motion for execution with the MTCC within the six month period. Petitioner claims that the motion for execution should have
been filed with the Lupon pursuant to Sections 3-12 of Rule VII of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Katarungang
Pambarangay Law. Petitioner therefore argues. that the proceedings before the MTCC are null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
Moreover, even assuming that the motion for execution could be filed in the MTCC, petitioner seeks to stop the execution
considering that supervening events transpired which would render the execution unjust and inequitable. Petitioner claims that
a relocation survey would prove that the property subject of the dispute actually falls within his land.
Respondent, in his memorandum,
issue the writ of execution.

Rollo, pp. 305-383.avers that the CA correctly ruled that the MTCC should be ordered to

Page 1 of 2

The sole issue is whether or not the CA and the RTC correctly ordered the MTCC to issue the writ of execution.
Section 416 of the Local Govermnent Code 8 See Sec. 1 of Rule VII of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law. provides that Sec. 416. Effects of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award- The amicable settlement
and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the
expiration of ten (10) days from the date thereof, unless repudiation of the settlement has been
made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper city or municipal court.
xxx
Section 417 of the Local Govermnent Code further provides that Sec. 417. Execution. - The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by
execution by the lupon within six (6) months from the date of the settlement. After the lapse of
such time, the settlement may be enforced by action in the appropriate city or municipal court.
Section 2 of Rule VII of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Katarungang Pambarangay Law further clarifies that Sec. 2. Modes of execution. - The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be
enforced by execution by the Lupon within six (6) months from date of the settlement or date of
receipt of the award or from the date the obligation stipulated in the settlement or adjudged in
the arbitration award becomes due and demandable. After the lapse of such time, the settlement
or award may be enforced by the appropriate local trial court pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Rules of Court. An amicable settlement reached in a case referred by the Court
having jurisdiction over the case to the Lupon shall be enforced by execution by the said court.
In this case, the CA held that .The six-month period could not be reckoned from the date of the settlement since during the
said period there was no violation of the compromise agreement, the violation occurring only
after the lapse of the period of six (6) months from settlement. It would be absurd on the part of
respondent to move for execution within the period of six (6) months from settlement, when
there was no violation yet of the compromise agreement. Respondent was not in a position to
anticipate when the violation of the compromise agreement would occur, and would only be in a
position to enforce the compromise agreement only upon its violation.
After a careful consideration of the records of the case, including the memoranda of the parties, we find the appellate court' s
reasoned conclusion correct, in the light of the circumstances of this controversy between neighbors. Moreover, its holding is
in line with the spirit of the law promoting speedy and inexpensive settlement of dispute at the barangay level. The cited
amicable settlement was already in force and ought to have been faithfully complied with.
Section 2 of Rule I of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Katarungang Pambarangay Law provides that "these rules
shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object of assisting disputants to obtajn a just, speedy and inexpensive
amicable settlement at the barangay level." 9 Sec. 2, Rule I, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules, stress supplied.The amicable
settlement having attained the force and effect of a final judgment of a court, it could be enforced by filing a motion for
execution with the proper court.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of CourtA

Page 2 of 2