Olego v Rubueno

This is a complaint filed by Pedro Servano, a lawyer from Naga City

against Cenona Olego asking for the declaration as to the legality of his
title in a residential lot located in Lagonoy, Camarines Sur.
According to Servano, he acquired the lot by purchase and that he was
in possession of it since time immemorial. But after acquiring it, Olego
then claimed to be the owner of the land. Since there was already a
cloud of doubt on his title, Servano rendered it necessary that his title
and possession toward the lot be declared legal. And due to Olegos
unjustified claim, he also wasnt able to collect rent which causes him
damages in the sum of P300 for attorneys fees and P120 annually for
rentals. He prayed to be declared as the absolute owner of the land as
well as the one that holds the legal title and that Olega be ordered to
pay him the damages he incurred.
On the other hand, Olego regarded Servanos claim as unfounded and
without any legal basis. According to her, she inherited the land from
her late father and she has been in actual possession of the land. She
filed a counterclaim for 3000 as actual and moral damages and 3000
as attorneys fees.
The hearing of the case was postponed for six times. However, in the
seventh time, the parties submitted to an amicable agreement. It
states there that Olego admits the allegation of Servano as to the
claim of the ownership of the land and that judgment be rendered
declaring the plaintiff the owner. In which the lower court approved
the compromise.
However after a decade of inactivity, Servano prayed that Olego and
her children shall be punished with contempt of court and ordered to
pay damages to him. He alleged that Olego and her children prevented
him and his agents from enjoying peaceful use and possession of the
said land.
Through a new counsel Atty. Flores, Olego filed a motion to dismiss the
contempt charge base on the grounds;
a.) the amicable settlement was obtained through fraud and
misrepresentation
b.) execution of judgment was barred by the statute of limitations
c.) the court had lost jurisdiction over the case.

In her Motion, she pointed out that;

a.) the judgment does not require her to vacate the land or deliver its
possession
b.) she was unaware that she signed an amicable settlement
c.) she was made to understand that she was signing a Motion of
Postponement and
d.) she never vacated the land because she thought that the case was
still to be tried.
Judge Rubueno denied the motion and set the contempt charge for
hearing. He reasoned that Olega has not disputed the validity of the
decision on the ground of fraud or mistake during the period of more
than ten years and her right to impugn the validity had already
prescribed.
In the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the counsel of Olego that no
safeguards were taken when she thumbmarked the compromise given
that she considers herself as an illiterate party and the possibility that
Servano and his counsel conspire with each other to commit fraud for
their mutual benefit.
ISSUES
1. Whether Olego could be held in contempt for not vacating the
land involved in the compromise
2. Whether the lower court decision should be set aside on the
grounds of fraud or could be enforced after the expiration of
more than ten years from the date of its finality

DECISION
1. NO, failure to vacate the lot could not be the basis for contempt
proceedings against her. In the compromise agreement and in
the decision approving it, she was not ordered to vacate the lot.
She only admitted the ownership of Atty. Servano and orders
citing her for contempt are oppressive, unjust and unwarranted.
2. As a rule, a compromise may be annulled on the ground of fraud
or mistake. As for the enforceability of the lower courts decision,
it is a general rule that the adjudication of ownership does not
include the possession of the property. A writ of execution would
be required if the defeated party does not surrender the
possession of the property. The owner shall enforce his right to
possess the land by asking for a writ within five years from the

finality of the decision. Thereafter, he could enforce his right by

action within the next five years. As for the case, Servano did
not enforce his right within the ten-year period. To enforce the
judgment in his favor would be a circumvention of the statute of
limitations. What the law prohibits directly should not be allowed
to be done indirectly.

Lower Courts order citing Olego for contempt of court, are set aside.
Costs against respondent Servano.