Raymundo Meris Morales v. Nemesio Fontanos

Summary

This case involves a dispute over a compromise agreement that settled a prior civil action regarding a pacto de retro sale allegedly being a usurious loan. The plaintiff sought to nullify both the compromise and the underlying sale after the defendant refused to allow redemption within the stipulated three-year period. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, ruling that the compromise agreement had res judicata effect under Articles 1816 and 1817 of the Civil Code and could not be annulled without showing error, deceit, violence, or forgery, none of which were alleged. The Court emphasized that the proper remedy for the defendant's refusal to allow redemption was enforcement of the compromise agreement, not nullification. The underlying sale could not be relitigated due to the res judicata effect of the compromise since it was precisely the question that had been settled by the parties' agreement.