G.R. No. 130366 - LILIA T. AARON, VS. HON. TEOFILO L. GUADIZ, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petition is given due course. The orders dated October 3, 1995 and November 9, 1995 are ordered reinstated. The Department of Justice is directed to reinstate private respondent's petition for review, rule thereon on the merits, and submit a report as to the results thereof to the court a quo within thirty (30) days from notice of this decision. Thereafter, the court a quo shall take further appropriate proceedings and resolve all pending motions or incidents in light of applicable jurisprudence." In a letter dated September 12, 1996, the Secretary of Justice reversed the questioned resolution finding no probable cause for estafa against the spouses Lirio and directed the City Prosecutor of Makati to move, with leave of court, for the withdrawal of the information for estafa filed against respondents-spouses. [12] Subsequently, on October 25, 1996, petitioner filed with the Department of Justice a motion for reconsideration, [13] but the Chief State Prosecutor denied the same on December 2, 1996. [14] On December 27, 1996, petitioner filed an appeal with the Office of the President. [15] But with no relief in sight, the petitioner withdrew the appeal. [16] On March 31, 1997, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 147, Makati City issued an order granting the motion to withdraw information filed by the trial prosecutor and thereby dismissing the case against the spouses Lirio for estafa. [17] Hence, this petition. [18] Petitioner alleges that respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing Criminal Case No. 95-1938, for estafa against respondent spouses Lirio. The petition is without merit. There was no showing of deceit in the transaction. Hence, no estafa. The obligation is civil. On November 9, 1999, the parties entered into a compromise agreement [19] in Civil Case No. 95-030, an action for the rescission of the contract of sale between the parties, which the lower court approved. The Compromise Judgment reads as follows: "x x x x x x x x x "COMPROMISE AGREEMENT" "THE PARTIES, hereby enter into the following Compromise Agreement, to wit: "1. Plaintiffs and Defendant binds themselves to push through with their original agreement stated in their Conditional Deed of Sale dated 19 January 1995 subject to the terms and conditions stipulated thereto by the execution of the Plaintiffs of the necessary Deed of Absolute Sale for the property located at No. 304 Apo Street, Ayala Alabang Village, covered by TCT No. 149433 of the Register of Deeds of Makati City in favor of the Defendant upon the payment of the net unpaid balance of the latter in the sum of P3,200,000.00. "2. Plaintiffs after the execution of the aforesaid Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property in favor of the Defendant shall be given or allowed to remain in possession or occupancy of the said property until after 30 April 2000. "3. Plaintiffs and defendant mutually waive and quitclaim any or claims for damages agains