Can a compromise agreement supersede court's judgment?

On the last issue, we note that the Compromise Agreement approved by the trial court in its Decision dated June 28, 2002 merely provided that petitioner would pay Angeles the bid price of P5,500,000, for the eight parcels of land subject of the auction sale, within twenty (20) days. Upon payment, Angeles would execute a Certificate of Deed of Redemption and a Deed of Cancellation of Mortgage, and surrender to petitioner the titles to the eight parcels of land. Nevertheless, when the trial court issued the writ of execution, the writ gave Sheriff Bisnar the option to allow the consolidation of the subject real properties in favor of the defendant Imelda Angeles.
Undoubtedly, the writ of execution imposed upon petitioner an alternative obligation which was not included or contemplated in the Compromise Agreement. While the complaint originally sought to restrain Angeles from consolidating her ownership to the foreclosed properties, that has been superseded by the Compromise Agreement.Therefore, the writ of execution which directed Sheriff Bisnar to cause the Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal, to allow the consolidation of the subject real properties in favor of the defendant Imelda Angeles is clearly erroneous because the judgment under execution failed to provide for consolidation.

Because the writ of execution varied the terms of the judgment and exceeded them, it had no validity. The writ of execution must conform to the judgment which is to be executed, as it may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. Neither may it go beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed. Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it has pro tanto no validity. (G.R. No. 163785; December 27, 2007)