CASE BRIEF NO. 2019-0052
CASE: Sps. Manuel and Evelyn Tio vs. BPI [G.R. No. 193534, January 30, 2019] BPI vs. Goldstar Milling Corp. and/or Sps. Manuel and Evelyn Tio [G.R. No. 194091, January 30, 2019]
PONENTE: Justice Marcelo Del Castillo
A. REMEDIAL LAW:
i. Judgement based on Compromise Agreement
FACTS: Sometime in 1998, Goldstar Milling Corporation (Goldstar), a corporation engaged in the business of rice milling and the buying and selling of corn and palay, together with spouses Tio, majority stockholders of Goldstar, obtained several loans from BPI. To secure the loans, spouses Tio executed various promissory notes and real estate mortgages over several properties, including the properties where their business and residence were located.
Due to the failure of Goldstar and spouses Tio to pay the loan despite repeated demands, BPI instituted foreclosure proceedings against the mortgaged properties.
In return, Goldstar and/or spouses Tio filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cauayan City, Isabela a Complaint for Annulment of Promissory Notes against BPI.
These two cases were elevated separately to the Supreme Court (SC). The SC issued a Resolutionconsolidating the two said cases.
However, during its pendency before the SC, BPI filed a Manifestation, Submission and/or Motion for Judgment based on a Compromise Agreemententered into by the parties. Spouses Tio affirmed and confirmed the execution of the said Compromise Agreement in their Omnibus Comment.
After reviewing the Compromise Agreement, the SC finds the same to be proper and in order.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby approves the same and renders judgment in accordance therewith, and accordingly, orders the parties to comply with all the terms and stipulations contained therein.
‘Stand by things decided’ ~ Stare Decisis
LET US KNOW. Feel free to suggest edits/changes by commenting below or email us at email@example.com
KEEP IN TOUCH with us by following us on our official Twitter account – @SDecisis101.