FACTS:

Respondent Belen filed an Amended Complaint for Partition and Accounting with Damages against her siblings, including petitioner Victoria, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). She alleged that they are compulsory heirs of their late mother and that she did not receive her lawful share from the estate. The defendants siblings filed their Answer, stating their willingness to settle amicably, and petitioner Victoria expressed support for the partition and accounting. Pre-trial was conducted, and the case was referred to mediation. The parties reached an agreement on the partition and a Compromise Agreement was drafted. However, petitioner Victoria did not attend the meeting for the signing of the Compromise Agreement due to lack of funds. The other siblings signed it and submitted it for approval. The RTC rendered a Decision approving the Compromise Agreement, which prompted petitioner Victoria to appeal to the CA. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, leading petitioner Victoria to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the RTC erred in rendering its Decision based on the compromise agreement entered into by the parties during the mediation conferences before the PMC.

RULING:

1. The Court affirmed the ruling of the CA that the RTC did not err in approving the Compromise Agreement. The Court held that a compromise agreement is a contract wherein the parties involved voluntarily and freely negotiate and agree upon what each gives or receives as moving consideration, thereby putting an end to their dispute or disagreement. In this case, all the parties attended the mediation conferences and successfully arrived at an agreement on the manner of partition of the estate. Despite petitioner Victoria's absence during the signing of the Compromise Agreement, her counsel had the opportunity to explain her nonattendance and the agreement was signed by the other siblings. Based on these circumstances, the Court found no reason to disregard the Compromise Agreement. The Court emphasized that once a compromise agreement is approved by the court, it becomes final and executory, and is not subject to appeal or reconsideration. Therefore, the RTC did not err in rendering its decision based on the compromise agreement.

PRINCIPLES:

• A compromise agreement is a contract wherein the parties involved voluntarily and freely negotiate and agree upon what each gives or receives as moving consideration, thereby putting an end to their dispute or disagreement.

• Once a compromise agreement is approved by the court, it becomes final and executory, and is not subject to appeal or reconsideration.