J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

LEGAL NOTE 0084: WHAT IS JUDICIAL COMPROMISE? WHAT ARE ITS EFFECTS?

SOURCE: BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS VS. ORIENT COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, JOSE C. GO, GEORGE C. GO, VICENTE C. GO, GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC., GO TONG ELECTRICAL SUPPLY INC., EVER EMPORIUM, INC., EVER GOTESCO RESOURCES AND HOLDINGS INC., GOTESCO  TYAN MING DEVELOPMENT INC., EVERCREST CEBU GOLF   CLUB AND RESORTS, INC., NASUGBU RESORTS INC., GMCC UNITED DEVELOPMENT CORP., GULOD RESORT, INC., OK STAR, EVER PLAZA, INC. AND EVER ELECTRICAL MFG., INC., (G.R. NO. 148383,  29 JUNE 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.) SUBJECTS: MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASE; JUDGMENT BASED ON COMPROMISE. (BRIEF TITLE: BANGKO SENTRAL VS. ORIENT COMMERCIAL).

 =====================================

WHAT IS JUDICIAL COMPROMISE AND WHAT ARE ITS EFFECTS?

A JUDICIAL COMPROMISE IS A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT INTENDED TO RESOLVE A MATTER ALREADY UNDER LITIGATION.

IT HAS THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF A JUDGMENT. IT HAS BECOME A JUDGMENT THAT IS SUBJECT TO EXECUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES.

A compromise agreement intended to resolve a matter already under litigation is a judicial compromise.  Having judicial mandate and entered as its determination of the controversy, such judicial compromise has the force and effect of a judgment.  It transcends its identity as a mere contract between the parties, as it becomes a judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules of Court.^[1][12]

LEGAL NOTE 0083: WHAT IS A MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASE?

SOURCE: BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS VS. ORIENT COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, JOSE C. GO, GEORGE C. GO, VICENTE C. GO, GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC., GO TONG ELECTRICAL SUPPLY INC., EVER EMPORIUM, INC., EVER GOTESCO RESOURCES AND HOLDINGS INC., GOTESCO  TYAN MING DEVELOPMENT INC., EVERCREST CEBU GOLF   CLUB AND RESORTS, INC., NASUGBU RESORTS INC., GMCC UNITED DEVELOPMENT CORP., GULOD RESORT, INC., OK STAR, EVER PLAZA, INC. AND EVER ELECTRICAL MFG., INC., (G.R. NO. 148383,  29 JUNE 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.) SUBJECTS: MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASE; JUDGMENT BASED ON COMPROMISE. (BRIEF TITLE: BANGKO SENTRAL VS. ORIENT COMMERCIAL).

=====================================

WHAT IS A MOOT AND ACADEMIC CASE?

IT IS A CASE THAT  CEASES TO PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY BY VIRTUE OF SUPERVENING EVENTS, SO THAT A DECLARATION THEREON WOULD BE OF NO PRACTICAL USE OR VALUE.

With the final settlement of the claims of petitioner against herein respondents, the issues raised in the present petition regarding the propriety of the issuance of writ of attachment by the trial court and the grave abuse of discretion allegedly committed by the appellate court in reversing the orders of the trial court, have now become moot and academic. “A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.”^[1][13]  In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which petitioner would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.^[2][14]

=====================================

LEGAL NOTE 0082: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF NOTARIZATION?

SOURCE:  SPOUSES WILFREDO PALADA AND  BRIGIDA PALADA VS. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION AND SHERIFF MAYO DELA CRUZ (G.R. NO. 172227, 29 JUNE 2011,  DEL CASTILLO, J.) SUBJECTS: VALIDITY OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE; NOTARIZED DOCUMENT. (BRIEF TITLE: SPOUSE PALADA VS. SOLIDBANK).

 ==================================== 

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF NOTARIZATION?

 ABSENT ANY CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF TO THE CONTRARY, A NOTARIZED DOCUMENT ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AND IS CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE TRUTHFULNESS OF ITS CONTENTS.^[1][42]

As to the RTC’s finding that “the x x x bank acted in bad faith when it made it appear that the mortgage was executed by the [petitioners] on June 16, 1997, when the document was acknowledged before Atty. German, x x x when in truth and in fact, the [petitioners] executed said mortgage sometime in March, 1997 x x x,” we find the same without basis.  A careful perusal of the real estate mortgage contract would show that the bank did not make it appear that the real estate mortgage was executed on June 16, 1997, the same day that it was notarized, as the date of execution of the real estate mortgage contract was left blank.^[2][41]  And the mere fact that the date of execution was left blank does not prove bad faith.  Besides, any irregularity in the notarization or even the lack of notarization does not affect the validity of the document.  Absent any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents.^[3][42]

====================================