Ordoñez vs Gustilo such person becomes a party thereto for the protection of some right or interest

GR No. 81835 alleged by him to be affected by such proceedings." (Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v.
the Presiding Judge, RTC Manila, Branch 39, et al., G.R. No. 89909, September 21,
PLAINTIFF: Ordoñez 1990)
DEFENDANT: Gustilo, Valeriano Expiritu, former Mayor Enriquez
DATE: December 20, 1990 An intervention has been regarded as "merely collateral or accessory or ancillary to
PONENTE: J. Paras the principal action and not an independent proceeding; an interlocutory proceeding
TOPIC: dependent on or subsidiary to, the case between the original parties." (Francisco,
Rules of Court, Vol. 1) The main action having ceased to exist, there is no pending
Facts: proceeding whereon the intervention may be based. (Barangay Matictic v. Elbinias,
148 SCRA 83, 89).
 This is a case wherein Respondent Espiritu filed a complaint for Specific
Performance and Damages against Mayor Enriquez, in his capacity as A judgment approving a compromise agreement is final and immediately executory.
Mayos to enforce agreement contained in a Reclamation Contract (Samonte v. Samonte, 64 SCRA 524) All pending issues will become moot and
o That they be ordered to convey the reclaimed foreshore land academic once a compromise submitted by the parties is approved by the trial court.
o Espiritu filed in his capacity as the assignee of Salinas (Berenguer v. Arcangel, 149 SCRA 164)
Development Corporation
 Defendant Municipality in its Answer In the case at bar, the compromise agreement submitted by the plaintiff and the
o Resisted plaintiffs claim stating that it was barred by the statute of defendants and the decision approving the same recognized the validity of the
limitation Reclamation Contract and the fact that the tract of land involved was the result of the
 That the Barangay Captain of Tejeros Convention, Petitioner Ordoñez reclamation done by SADECO. In their answer-in-intervention, petitioner alleges that
intervened in there was no reclamation undertaken by SADECO, that the land in question was the
o In the Answer-in-Intervention, alleged result of accretion from the sea and that the Reclamation Contract is null and void.
 That no actual reclamation was done by the plaintiff and Clearly then, the compromise agreement and the decision had in effect resolved the
the area being claimed by the plaintiff came about by aforementioned issues raised by the intervenors. As aptly observed by the trial court,
natural accretion the continuation of the reception of the intervenors' evidence would serve no purpose
 Reclamation contract between the contractor and the at all. Should intervenors fail to prove that the Reclamation Contract is null and void
municipality is void, voidable or disadvantageous to the and that no actual reclamation was made, the correctness and propriety of the
municipality decision based on the compromise agreement would be strengthened. Upon the other
 During the pre-trial conference all litigants including intervenors were hand, should they succeed in proving that the contract is null and void, and that the
present area in question came into being through the natural action of the sea, still the
o That Espiritu and Municipality arrived at a settlement – they would decision of the lower court could no longer be set aside, inasmuch as it has already
submit compromise agreement at a latter date become final and executed.
o Filed the promised Compromise agreement - APPROVED
 On the other hand, intervenors asked the court that they be allowed to There is, therefore, no merit to the claim of petitioner that the lower court
present their evidence to prove their defense asserted in their Answer-in- "unceremoniously terminated the proceedings" even "without the intervenors
Intervention completing their evidence." (Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 140, 143, Rollo) Precisely,
o Filed a motion to set aside the compromise agreement the court a quo gave credence and weight to the compromise agreement and denied
the claims of the intervenors which were controverting the theories of the plaintiff and
Issue: W/N the lower court erred in stopping the interenors from further presenting the defendants. In other words, due process had been accorded the intervenors. It
their evidence in support of their Answer-in-Intervention, NO would have been different had the court not taken into consideration the claims of the
intervenors.
Ruling:
The petitioner cannot claim ignorance of the filing of the compromise agreement. As
Intervention is defined as a "proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is can be gleaned from the pre-trial order, the intervenors were represented during the
permitted by the court to make himself a party, either joining plaintiff in claiming what pre-trial conferences, where the plaintiff and the defendants intimated that they would
is sought by the complaint, or uniting with defendant in resisting the claims of plaintiff, submit a compromise agreement. The intervenors did not interpose any opposition to
or demanding something adversely to both of them; the act or proceeding by which a the manifestation of the plaintiff and defendants that they would be amicably settling
third person becomes a party in a suit pending between others; the admission, by their dispute. The compromise agreement was filed in court on May 20, 1985. It was
leave of court, of a person not an original party to pending legal proceedings, by which approved by the lower court on May 24, 1986. Before its approval no opposition had
been filed questioning its legality. The intervenors received their copy of the decision
on September 19, 1985. They did not file any motion for reconsideration to suspend its
finality. It was only on June 24, 1987, or after the lapse of almost two (2) years when
they filed a motion to set aside the compromise agreement. It should be emphasized
at this juncture that the decision based on the compromise agreement had long been
executed.