This study examines the pragmatic dimension of Maguindanaon settlement agreements in Sultan Kudarat through the lens of Searle’s Illocutionary Act Theory. Using a qualitative descriptive design and discourse analysis, the research analyzed land, marriage, and financial settlement agreements to identify how illocutionary acts are linguistically realized and what pragmatic functions they serve in legitimizing and enforcing agreements. The findings revealed that assertive acts grounded agreements in factual truths such as land boundaries, dowry payments, and repayment schedules, thereby ensuring transparency and eliminating ambiguity. Directive acts regulated conduct through explicit instructions, prohibitions, and conditional obligations, transforming agreements into binding instruments of compliance. Commissive acts established accountability by embedding promises and future commitments, while expressive acts humanized settlements by acknowledging emotions, fostering reconciliation, and restoring dignity. Declarative acts emerged as the most authoritative, creating binding legal and social realities through the pronouncements of elders, barangay officials, and Shariah courts. These pragmatic features demonstrate that settlement agreements in Sultan Kudarat function not only as juridical documents but also as cultural and social artifacts. They embody the interplay of law, culture, and religion, sustaining justice, peace, and communal harmony through the performative power of language.