With regard to the CSDC`s claim that BPI cannot argue before the courts listed below that its lease covers both Bays 4 and Bay 5 (to claim a total monthly rent of P26,116.39), BPI having been `silent on the waiver of [B]sdc] to [B]ay 5 until the filing of the [second] case`:  The Court of Appeal, when CSDC submitted its application to abandon Bay 5, was informed (CSDC) by the bank`s management of its subsequent refusal.  The CSDC`s assertion on Estoppel is therefore not to be deplored. Most importantly, CSDC knowingly entered into the court-approved compromise agreement, in which it committed to pay a monthly rent rate of P26,116.39, which represents monthly rents for the two leased units. Cralaw Section 2035 of that law lists those who cannot be compromised to say that there are no specific rules in that jurisdiction, third party funders. and a party to the trial would normally be free to obtain his or her trial grounds. However, an agreement in which a lawyer undertakes to bear the costs of a procedure to enforce the client`s rights is dazzling (Roxas v Republic Real Estate Corp, G R No. 208205, June 1, 2016). A contract that is half as large is contrary to public policy, as it violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client, whose weakness or disadvantage can be exploited by the former (Nocom v Camerino, G R No. 182984, 10 February 2009). Yes. The parties may conclude compromise or concord agreements covering cases pending in proceedings, on appeal or even on appeal, which have already been the subject of a final decision. There is no time limit for entering into a compromise or settlement agreement (Magbanua v Uy, G R No. 161003 6 May 2005).
“It is therefore stipulated in law and case law that the status and filiation of a child may not be affected. Public order requires that there be no compromise on the status and filiation of a child. Paternity and filiation, or the absence thereof, is a relationship that must be established by justice” (emphasize here only). Article 2039. Where the parties generally compromise on any differences they may have between them, the discovery of documents relating to one or more, but not all, issues is not itself a reason to annul or cancel the compromise, unless those documents have been concealed by either party. Dear Morry, before answering your question, we believe that it is necessary to explain the concept of a compromise agreement. The new Civil Code of the Philippines defines a compromise agreement as follows: a general waiver of rights means only the one that is related to the dispute that was the subject of the compromise. (1815) The CSDC`s assertion that the duration of the lease provided for in the compromise agreement has not yet expired to prejudice the filing of illegal detention proceedings fails, as paragraph 3 of the compromise agreement states that if you apply the above to your question, you have, as an injured party, in the agreement you have entered into with your son`s father: the right to choose whether you terminate the agreement and a case in court for the purpose of obtaining sufficient support for your son or enforcing the agreement. . . .