In Brief
A land ownership dispute turned on whether an oral compromise reached in 1984 was valid and whether a subsequent sale deed was enforceable. The original plaintiffs owned half the land; the defendants were tenants. During a pending appeal, the original plaintiffs sold the land to the defendants' relatives without a written compromise. Later, all parties orally stated in court that they had settled. The court dismissed the case. Years later, the original plaintiffs sued for their half share, claiming the sale was invalid under the doctrine of lis pendens. The Supreme Court held that a valid compromise requires a written, signed agreement complying with the Code of Civil Procedure. Oral statements alone do not suffice. The original plaintiffs' collusive conduct—executing the sale while concealing it, then seeking dismissal—defeated the lis pendens doctrine. The trial court's dismissal was upheld.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.