TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed that a compromise agreement, once judicially approved, is binding and enforceable as a judgment. In this case, Spouses Bernardo defaulted on their loan and entered into a compromise agreement with Union Bank to repurchase their foreclosed property. When they defaulted again on the compromise agreement, the Court ruled that Union Bank was entitled to exercise its original rights under the real estate mortgage, including foreclosure. The decision underscores that compromise agreements do not automatically novate original obligations unless explicitly stated, and failure to comply with such agreements allows creditors to pursue stipulated remedies, reinforcing the sanctity of contracts and court-approved settlements.

The Binding Bargain: When a Second Chance Still Leads to Foreclosure

This case, Spouses Bernardo v. Union Bank, revolves around a loan, a real estate mortgage, a foreclosure, and crucially, a compromise agreement. The spouses initially obtained a loan from Union Bank secured by their family home. Upon defaulting, the bank foreclosed the property. Seeking to resolve the matter, the parties entered into a compromise agreement, approved by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), allowing the spouses to repurchase the property under a new payment plan. The central legal question arose when the spouses again failed to meet their obligations under this compromise: Could Union Bank revert to its original remedy of foreclosure, or was it limited to merely enforcing the compromise agreement’s payment terms? This decision clarifies the interplay between original loan obligations, compromise agreements, and the enduring enforceability of mortgage contracts.

The narrative began with the spouses’ initial loan and mortgage. After they defaulted, Union Bank rightfully initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, becoming the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale. Subsequently, the spouses filed a complaint to annul the foreclosure, citing publication issues. This lawsuit was then settled through a compromise agreement where the spouses agreed to buy back the property for a fixed price, payable in installments. This agreement, approved by the RTC, carried the weight of a judicial judgment. However, history repeated itself, and the spouses defaulted once more, this time on their compromise agreement obligations. Union Bank then moved for a writ of execution to consolidate its title, which was initially granted by the RTC, then reconsidered in favor of the spouses, and ultimately reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Supreme Court took up the case to resolve whether the compromise agreement extinguished the original loan obligation and whether Union Bank could still exercise its rights under the original mortgage.

The Supreme Court firmly stated that the petition for certiorari was the wrong mode of appeal, as the proper remedy was a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. Nevertheless, addressing the merits, the Court emphasized the nature of a compromise agreement as a contract where parties make reciprocal concessions to avoid or end litigation. Crucially, a court-approved compromise agreement attains the effect of res judicata, meaning the matter is considered judged and cannot be relitigated. The Court cited Article 2028 of the Civil Code, defining a compromise as “a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.” Furthermore, Article 2037 of the same code reinforces its binding nature, stating it “has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata”.

A pivotal issue was whether the compromise agreement novated the original loan obligation. Novation, under Article 1291 of the Civil Code, requires a clear change in the object, cause, or principal conditions of the obligation, or substitution of debtor or subrogation of creditor. The Court found no such novation. The compromise agreement merely provided a new payment scheme for the original debt; it did not extinguish or replace the underlying loan obligation itself. The agreement explicitly referred to the repurchase of the foreclosed property related to the original loan. The Court highlighted that the remedies outlined in the compromise agreement itself included recourse to the real estate mortgage in case of default. Specifically, paragraph 9 of the Compromise Agreement stated that failure to comply would entitle Union Bank to “the exercise by [Union Bank] of its rights and remedies under the Real Estate Mortgage.”

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding that the RTC gravely abused its discretion by misinterpreting the compromise agreement. The RTC erroneously limited Union Bank’s remedies to merely collecting the outstanding balance, disregarding the explicit provision allowing the bank to exercise its mortgage rights. The Court reiterated the principle of pacta sunt servanda, contracts are binding and must be faithfully observed. The compromise agreement clearly stipulated the bank’s remedies, and the RTC was bound to enforce it according to its terms. The Supreme Court concluded that Union Bank was within its rights to pursue consolidation of title and exercise its remedies under the real estate mortgage due to the spouses’ repeated defaults. This case reinforces the importance of carefully considering the terms of compromise agreements, as they are legally binding and enforceable, and failure to comply can lead to the enforcement of original obligations and agreed-upon remedies.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Bernardo v. Union Bank, G.R. No. 208892, September 18, 2019