Case Digest
G.R. No. L-39119 September 26, 1986
FELICIANA BUMANLAG and FLAVIANO BUMANLAG, petitioners,
vs.
HON. ANACLETO B. ALZATE, as Presiding Judge, Branch II, Court of first Instance of Tarlac, TOMASA BUMANLAG, and SILVINO ESPUGADO, respondents.
Emilio D. Castellanes for petitioners.
Lauro O. Samson for respondents.
PARAS, J.:
Facts: On the first case which entitled Bumanlag, et. al. v. Bumanlag, et. al. the petitioner sued herein the private respondents for partition of the lots inherited by both parties from their deceased father, respondents however moved to dismiss on the ground that some years before a final and executory judgment (based on a compromise agreement) involving the same parties, same subject matter, and same causes of action had already been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and that therefore the doctrine of res judicata clearly bars the present case; petitioners contend that said judgment is void because the compromise agreement had been signed in their behalf by their lawyer who had not been authorized by them to enter into such agreement, consequently there can be no res judicata.
Issue: Whether or not the lawyer who signed a compromised agreement in behalf of his client without the consent of the latter is void?
Ruling: No, the compromise is not void but only unenforceable and may therefore be ratified by the client expressly or impliedly which stated on “Art. 1403 The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified: 1. Those entered into in the name of another person by one who has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers.”
Obligations and Contracts 