Short answer. Yes, generally. When a compromise is agreed upon while either or both parties are unaware that a final judgment had already resolved the same dispute, the compromise may be rescinded — but this only applies to a judgment that was truly final, not one still open to revocation or reversal.

What the law says

If after a litigation has been decided by a final judgment, a compromise should be agreed upon, either or both parties being unaware of the existence of the final judgment, the compromise may be rescinded.

Civil Code, Article 2040 — Compromise Ignorant of a Final Judgment. Read the full provision →

The rule: ignorance of a final judgment can undo the compromise

When parties settle a dispute through a compromise agreement while unaware that the court had already handed down a final judgment on that very dispute, the law allows the compromise to be rescinded. It does not matter whether one party or both were unaware — the statute covers either situation. The reasoning is straightforward: a compromise is meant to end an uncertain or ongoing dispute through mutual concession, and there is nothing left to compromise once a final judgment has already settled the matter.

The critical qualifier: the judgment must be final

This remedy depends entirely on the judgment being final — meaning it was no longer subject to appeal or further ordinary review at the time the compromise was signed. The statute is explicit that ignorance of a judgment which may still be revoked or set aside is not a valid ground for attacking a compromise. If the earlier decision could still have been reversed on appeal or reconsideration when you signed, this article does not give you a basis to undo the settlement.

What you would need to establish

To rely on this rule, you would need to show that a final judgment on the same litigation existed before the compromise was made, and that you or the other party did not know about it at that time. The timing matters: if the judgment became final only after the compromise was signed, this specific provision does not apply, since the rule is about a judgment that already existed and was simply unknown, not one that came later.

Why the law draws the line at finality

A compromise is a mutual concession — each side gives up something to avoid the uncertainty and cost of continued litigation. That trade-off makes sense only while the outcome is still genuinely uncertain. Once a final judgment exists, the matter is already settled by the court, and a compromise made in ignorance of that fact is not really resolving a live dispute at all — it is built on a mistaken premise about what was still open to negotiate. That is why the law lets the compromise be undone in that specific situation, while refusing the same relief where the earlier decision was not yet final and could still have changed on appeal.

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.