G.R. No.

130864 October 2, 2007 Upon inquiry, Harold and her husband were the Lupon chairman, and witnessed by
informed that Aliba had sold the lot to a third several barangay officials.5
MARIA L. HAROLD, petitioner, person.
vs. On June 9, 1994, as agreed upon, Aliba
AGAPITO T. ALIBA, respondent. On several occasions, Aliba tried to convince tendered the remaining P5,000 to Harold to
Harold to accept the sum of P400,000 which complete their amicable settlement.
DECISION was later on increased to P500,000, as Unfortunately, Harold refused to accept the
purchase price of the said lot. It was only after same, saying that P5,000 is not enough and
QUISUMBING, J.: such offers were made that Aliba told Harold insisted on the elevation of the case to the
that he had indeed sold the lot. court.6 Thus, a certification to file action7 was
issued by the Office of the Lupong
For review on certiorari is the Decision1 dated
On May 3, 1994, Harold agreed to accept Tagapamayapa on June 29, 1994.
September 3, 1997 of the Court of Appeals in
the P500,000 from Aliba but only as partial Immediately thereafter, Harold filed a
CA-G.R. SP No. 40416, affirming the
payment, considering that the lot has an Complaint8 against Aliba before the Municipal
dismissal of petitioner Maria L. Harold’s
aggregate value of P1,338,0003 or P6,000 per Trial Court (MTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet.
complaint before the Municipal Trial Court of
La Trinidad, Benguet. square meter. On the same date, Harold was
made to sign an acknowledgment receipt and In his Answer,9 Aliba prayed for the dismissal
other papers which were made to appear that of the complaint, considering that he had
The pertinent facts are as follows:
Harold accepted the sum of P480,000 as full already been absolutely released from any
and final payment for the lot. obligation to Harold and that what remains to
Sometime in January 1993, Harold engaged be done is merely the completion of the
the services of respondent Agapito T. Aliba, a amicable settlement of the parties.
Harold later discovered that Aliba made it
geodetic engineer, to conduct a relocation
appear that she had sold the lot to him
survey and to execute a consolidation-
for P80,000 and had her certificates of title On September 4, 1995, the MTC issued an
subdivision of their properties including that of
cancelled and transferred to him. Harold also Order dismissing Harold’s complaint, holding
Harold’s sister, Alice Laruan, located in Pico,
found out that the alleged deed of sale was that
La Trinidad, Benguet. After completing his
the document that Aliba caused Harold and
work, Aliba was paid P4,050 for his services,
her husband to sign in January 1994. xxxx
but he failed to return the certificates of title of
the said properties for more than one year,
despite repeated demands to return them. Thinking that she can no longer recover her It is not disputed that on June 8, 1994,
property, Harold asked for the payment of the both parties met before Barangay
fair market value of her property but to no Captain Limson Ogas. After a lengthy
It also appears that sometime in January
avail. The dispute between Harold and Aliba deliberation, towards mediation, it was
1994, Aliba prevailed upon Harold and her
was referred to Punong Barangay Limson agreed by both parties in the presence
husband to sign a document which was
Ogas and the Lupong Tagapamayapa. During of Barangay Officials that Mr. Agapito
supposedly needed to facilitate the
the June 8, 1994 barangay conciliation Aliba will pay an additional amount of
consolidation-subdivision and the issuance of
proceedings, the parties herein agreed that P75,000.00 to settle once and for all
separate transfer certificates of title over the
Aliba will pay an additional amount of P75,000 the case. Mr. Aliba at that time has in
properties. Harold and her husband signed
to the initial P500,000 Aliba had already given his possession P70,000.00, because
the document without reading it.
to Harold. In the same proceedings, Aliba that was the amount previously
tendered P70,000, which Harold agreed upon by both parties. The
Thereafter, on April 18, 1994, a truck loaded accepted.4 The receipt of the amount given amount of P70,000.00 was personally
with G.I. sheets and construction materials was evidenced by an acknowledgment receipt handed by Mr. Aliba to Mrs. Harold, on
came to the subject lot2 owned by Harold. signed by the parties herein, attested to by
Page 1 of 4
that day, the remaining balance of not enough, then insisted that the Dissatisfied, Harold filed an appeal before the
P5,000.00 to be paid the following case be filed in court, but at the same Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63, of La
day, June 9, 1994. An time refusing to return the P70,000.00, Trinidad, Benguet.
Acknowledgment Receipt was signed when defendant tried to collect it back.
by Mrs. Harold and witnessed by the Consequently, the issuance of the In an Order dated February 20, 1996, the RTC
barangay officials. . . . Certificate to File Action, is improper affirmed in toto the assailed Order of the MTC.
because no valid repudiation [of the
The said minutes further states amicable settlement] was made. Undaunted, Harold further appealed to the
therein, "continued for the second Court of Appeals, which however denied the
day", which logically means that the Obviously, Mrs. Harold wants her cake same. Hence this petition, on the following
balance be given the following day. and eat it too, so to speak. It is grounds:
in[i]quitous to allow Mrs. Harold to
In the afternoon of June 9, 1994, Mr. exact substantial fulfillment from Aliba I.
Aliba returned with the remaining then conveniently change her mind
balance of P5,000.00. It was at this overnight and worse, to refuse to give
WHETHER OR NOT THE THREE
time that when Mr. Aliba was back what she already received.
LOWER COURTS WERE CORRECT
supposed to hand the money Mrs. IN DISMISSING HER COMPLAINT
Harold bluntly told him the amount of The Court agrees with defendant that ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT SHE
P5,000 is still not enough and instead there is no clear repudiation of the AND RESPONDENT WERE ABLE TO
she started crying and shouting . . . . agreement. It would have been ARRIVE [AT] A MUTUALLY
different if Mrs. Harold returned the ACCEPTABLE AMICABLE
The last paragraph [of the minutes] P70,000.00 to the defendant, after SETTLEMENT BEFORE THE
states "Mr. Aliba requested then if the changing her mind. There would have BARANGAY COURT OF THEIR
paid amount of P70,000.00 be been a clear repudiation of the PLACE WHEN CLEARLY ALL
returned. Mrs. Harold refused and amicable settlement.11 CIRCUMSTANCES SHOW THERE
opted that this case be elevated to the WAS NO MEETING OF MINDS
higher court." The dispositive portion of the said MTC Order BETWEEN THEM.
reads:
Based on the minutes of the mediation II.
proceedings, it is clear that Barangay WHEREFORE, in view of the
Captain Ogas was able to successfully foregoing findings, the Motion to GRANTING, WITHOUT ADMITTING,
mediate the case between plaintiff and Dismiss, incorporated in the Answer is THERE WAS A MEETING OF MINDS
defendant. As a matter of fact, Aliba hereby granted. This case is hereby BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND
has already substantially complied. It ordered dismissed. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A VALID
is not disputed that he gave plaintiff, AMICABLE SETTLEMENT,
on that occasion, P70,000.00, and to However, defendant is hereby ordered WHETHER OR NOT THE
give the balance of P5,000.00, the day to tender payment to plaintiff his ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT
after. Thus, there was meeting of the balance in the amount of P5,000.00 SIGNED BY PETITIONER AND THE
minds between the parties on a lawful when this order becomes final and MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS
subject, and there was substantial executory. IS A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE
fulfillment of the obligation. WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF
Regret[t]ably, when the small balance SO ORDERED.12 SECTION 411 OF RA 7160,
is to be paid, Mrs. Harold reneged on OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
the agreement, saying P75,000.0010 is
Page 2 of 4
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF and Aliba because there was allegedly no she might have against Aliba regarding the
1991 AS CONCLUDED BY THE meeting of the minds between them regarding subject lot. Moreover, she is likewise barred
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, AND the subject matter and the cause thereof.14 On from pursuing her case against Aliba under
AFFIRMED BY THE REGIONAL the other hand, Aliba’s principal defense is the principle of estoppel now._
TRIAL COURT AND COURT OF anchored on the alleged existence and validity
APPEALS. of the said amicable settlement.15 Under Article 1431 of the Civil Code, through
estoppel, an admission or representation is
III. Harold’s submission that there was no rendered conclusive upon the person making
meeting of the minds between the parties it, and cannot be denied or disproved as
GRANTING, WITHOUT ADMITTING, herein pertaining to the subject matter and against the person relying on it. Expounding
SAID LAW WAS SUBSTANTIALLY cause of the questioned amicable settlement on the principle of estoppel, we held
COMPLIED WITH, WHETHER OR is a clear deviation from the facts on record. in Springsun Management Systems
NOT PETITIONER’S ACT OF NOT Admittedly, both parties agreed during the Corporation v. Camerino19 that "where a party,
ACCCEPTING THE REMAINING June 8, 1994 barangay conciliation by his deed or conduct, has induced another
BALANCE BEING PROFFERED BY proceedings for Aliba to pay an additional to act in a particular manner, estoppel
RESPONDENT AND HER amount of P75,000 (which was the object or effectively bars the former from adopting an
INSISTENCE THAT THE CASE BE subject matter of the amicable settlement) to inconsistent position, attitude or course of
INSTEAD ELEVATED TO THE the initial P500,000 Aliba had given to Harold conduct that causes loss or injury to the
COURTS DURING THE SECOND as purchase price for the subject lot in order to latter."20
DAY OF HEARING SHOULD NOT put an end to their dispute (which was the
ALSO BE CONSIDERED A cause or reason of the amicable settlement). The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the
REPUDIATION OF SAID AMICABLE Thus, it is evident that the parties herein grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good
SETTLEMENT OR AT THE VERY entered into an amicable settlement, or more faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid
LEAST A SUBSTANTIAL specifically, a compromise agreement, during one to speak against his own act,
COMPLIANCE THEREOF.13 the said barangay conciliation proceedings. representations, or commitments to the injury
of one to whom they were directed and who
Essentially, we are asked to resolve whether Under Article 2028 of the Civil Code, reasonably relied thereon.21
the Court of Appeals committed reversible a compromise agreement was defined as "a
error in affirming the dismissal of the contract whereby the parties, by making The issue concerning the alleged non-
complaint on the ground that the dispute reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or put compliance of the amicable settlement
between the parties had already been an end to one already commenced." In pursuant to the mandate of Section 41122 of
amicably settled during the barangay Sanchez v. Court of Appeals,16 we held that a Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local
conciliation proceedings. "compromise is a form of amicable settlement Government Code (LGC) arose because there
that is not only allowed but also encouraged in was no formal document denominated as
After a careful scrutiny of the records of this civil cases."17 "Amicable Settlement" signed by the parties.
case, we hold that no reason exists to However, we agree with the similar holdings
overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals It must also be highlighted that Harold of the Court of Appeals and the RTC that the
affirming the dismissal of the subject expressly acknowledged that the offer made requirements under Section 411 of the LGC
complaint. by Aliba to pay an additional P75,000 was had been substantially complied with. The
made in order for her to desist from pursuing minutes of the barangay conciliation
In this case, Harold’s main contention was her case against him.18 By reason of her proceedings readily disclose the terms agreed
hinged on the alleged non-perfection of the unconditional acceptance of the offer and upon by the parties for the settlement of their
questioned amicable settlement between her the P70,000 tendered to her, Harold had dispute, and that the acknowledgment receipt,
already effectively waived whatever claims which was written in a language known to the
Page 3 of 4
parties, signed by them, attested to by CA-G.R. SP No. 40416 is AFFIRMED. Costs
the Lupon Chairman, and witnessed by against the petitioner.
several barangay officials, serves as an
indubitable proof of the amicable settlement SO ORDERED.
and of the substantial compliance of its terms
by respondent Aliba.

Moreover, even without the minutes of the

meeting and the acknowledgment receipt, the
amicable settlement, or more specifically the
compromise agreement, entered into by the
parties is undeniably valid, considering that "a
compromise agreement is a consensual
contract, and as such, it is perfected upon the
meeting of' the minds of the parties to the
contract."23

Furthermore, to rule against the validity of the

cited amicable settlement herein would
militate against the spirit and purpose of
the Katarungang Pambarangay Law,24 which
is to encourage the amicable settlement of
disputes at the barangay level as an
alternative to court litigation.

Harold’s refusal to accept the

remaining P5,000 that Aliba had tendered
cannot constitute an effective repudiation of
the questioned amicable settlement,
considering that the reason for her refusal to
accept the said amount or alleged repudiation
of the assailed amicable settlement is not one
of the grounds for repudiation clearly specified
under Section 41825 of the LGC. As borne out
by the records, her refusal to accept the same
was based on the alleged insufficiency of the
remaining P5,000 as settlement for the lot,
without any reference to vitiation of her
consent by any fraud, violence or intimidation
on Aliba’s part.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack

of merit. The assailed Decision dated
September 3, 1997 of the Court of Appeals in
Page 4 of 4