Short answer. No. The law draws a sharp line: ignorance of a judgment which may be revoked or set aside is not a valid ground for attacking a compromise. Because the judgment you describe could still be appealed or overturned, your own ignorance of it does not let you rescind the settlement.
What the law says
Ignorance of a judgment which may be revoked or set aside is not a valid ground for attacking a compromise
Civil Code, Article 2040 — Compromise Ignorant of a Final Judgment. Read the full provision →
The rescission rule only covers ignorance of a FINAL judgment
The provision's first sentence sets the rule that does allow rescission: 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be agreed upon, either or both parties being unaware of the existence of the final judgment, the compromise may be rescinded. That relief is tied specifically to a judgment that is already final — settled and no longer open to any change at all.
A judgment still open to appeal is treated differently
The second sentence draws the contrast that answers your question directly: ignorance of a judgment which may be revoked or set aside is not a valid ground for attacking a compromise. A judgment that could still be appealed or otherwise overturned is, by definition, one that may be revoked or set aside — and the rule expressly excludes ignorance of that kind of judgment as a basis to undo your settlement.
Why finality is the dividing line
The distinction turns on whether the earlier judgment was truly settled at the time of the compromise. A final judgment represents a fixed, no-longer-changeable outcome that a compromise could unknowingly conflict with or duplicate, which is exactly why the law lets genuinely ignorant parties out of that particular compromise. A judgment still subject to appeal has simply not yet reached that same settled state, so remaining unaware of it while compromising does not carry the same justification for allowing rescission.
What this means for your settlement
Because you describe a judgment that could still be appealed or otherwise overturned rather than one that was already final, your situation falls squarely under the second sentence, not the first. Not knowing about that particular judgment when you settled is, under this specific provision, not by itself a valid legal ground for attacking or undoing your compromise agreement now.
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.
- Felipe O. Magbanua, et al. vs. Rizalino Uy, G.R. No. 161003, May 6, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Equitable PCI Banking Corporation vs. RCBC Capital Corporation, G.R. No. 182248, December 18, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- National Power Corporation vs. Hon. Rose Marie Alonzo-Legasto, et al, G.R. No. 148318, November 22, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →