Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF SAUDI ARABIA v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 156185 2011-09-12	CATALINA B. CHU v. SPS. FERNANDO C. CUNANAN BERSAMIN, J.
A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.[19] It encompasses the objects specifically stated therein, although it may include other objects by necessary implication,[20] and is binding on the contracting parties, being expressly acknowledged as a juridical agreement between them.[21] It has the effect and authority of res judicata upon the parties.[22]
	GR No. 153420 2008-04-16	PARAISO INTERNATIONAL PROPERTIES v. CA and PEOPLE’S HOUSING LAND CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
To elucidate, the absence of a specific date does not adversely affect the agreement considering that the date of execution is not an essential element of a contract.[18] A compromise agreement is essentially a contract perfected by mere consent, the latter being manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract.[19] The CA should have allowed greater laxity in scrutinizing the compromise agreement, not only because the absence of a specific date is a mere formal defect, but also because the signatories to the compromise indicated the date when they signed the agreement beside their signatures. These signatories are also sufficiently authorized to enter into a compromise by the respective board of directors of the petitioner and the respondent.[20] It is not amiss to state at this point that in National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia v. Court of Appeals,[21] we approved an undated compromise agreement.
	GR NO. 170092 2006-12-06	XAVIERVILLE III HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. XAVIERVILLE II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
En passant, the parties' attention is invited to National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia v. Court of Appeals[13] wherein this Court held:Under Article 1306 of the Civil Code, contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Thus, a compromise agreement whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions to resolve their differences to thereby put an end to litigation is binding on the contracting parties and is expressly acknowledged as a juridical agreement between them. To have the force of res judicata, however, the compromise agreement must be approved by final order of the court.[14] (Italics in the original, underscoring supplied)