Short answer. Almost, but not for enforcement. Article 2037 gives a compromise the effect and authority of res judicata upon the parties, yet provides that there shall be no execution except in compliance with a judicial compromise. A private settlement binds you; it cannot be executed like a judgment.

What the law says

A compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata; but there shall be no execution except in compliance with a judicial compromise.

Civil Code, Article 2037 — Compromise Has Effect of Res Judicata. Read the full provision →

Binding as to the dispute, different as to enforcement

Article 2037 provides that A compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata; but there shall be no execution except in compliance with a judicial compromise. The first clause is strong: the matter compromised is closed between you, and neither side may reopen the same controversy afterwards because the settlement turned out badly. The second clause is the limit people discover too late. A settlement signed across a table is a contract with that conclusive effect, but it is not a judgment, and the enforcement machinery that follows a judgment is reserved for a compromise made judicial.

What makes a compromise judicial

The distinction is between a settlement made privately and one made in a pending case and submitted to the court, which approves it and renders judgment in its terms. Only the second is a judicial compromise, and only the second carries the possibility of execution. That is a practical reason to put a settlement of an existing case on record rather than to sign it and withdraw quietly. Article 2029 shows the same policy from the court's side, directing that the court shall endeavour to persuade the litigants in a civil case to agree upon some fair compromise.

If the other side does not comply

For a private settlement, non-compliance is answered by Article 2041, which gives the aggrieved party a choice: either enforce the compromise, or regard it as rescinded and insist upon his original demand. That election is worth taking seriously rather than making by default. Enforcing means suing on the settlement, on its terms and for what it promised. Rescinding puts the original claim back in play with everything that came before it, which may be larger but is also the fight the compromise was entered into to avoid.

Read what the document actually settled

Article 2028 defines a compromise as a contract by which the parties, making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Article 2036 then limits its reach: a compromise comprises only those objects definitely stated in it, or which by necessary implication from its terms should be deemed included, and a general renunciation of rights is understood to refer only to those connected with the dispute compromised. Article 2038 deals separately with a compromise affected by mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, undue influence or falsity of documents.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.