FACTS: The
facts involved in this case are: On August 31, 1933 , Victoriano, Leonardo, Vicenta, Isabina,
Gregoria, Ceferina, Jose and Geronimo, all surnamed Ramos, executed a power of
attorney in favor of their brother Eladio Ramos giving the latter authority to
encumber, mortgage and transfer in favor of any person a parcel of land
situated in Bayambang, Pangasinan. On August 9, 1934 , by virtue of the power of attorney
abovementioned, Eladio Ramos executed in favor of one Romualdo Rivera a
mortgage on therefore said property. Together with another parcel of land, to
guarantee the payment of loan of 300, with interest thereon at the rate of 12%
per annum. When Eladio Ramos failed to pay the obligation on its date of
maturity, Romualdo Rivera, the mortgage, filed an action to foreclosure the
mortgage, making as parties-defendants the herein petitioners, brothers and
sisters of Eladio Ramos (civil case No. 7668). The summons was served only upon
Eladio Ramos, who acknowledge the service in his own behalf and in that
services of Attorney Lauro C. Maiquez, who put in his appearance for all the
defendants, and submitted an answer in their behalf. After trial, at which both
parties presented their evidence, the court rendered decision ordering Eladio
Ramos to pay to the plaintiff his obligation of 300, with interest thereon at
the rate of 12 per cent per annum, from August 9, 1934, until its full
payment, plus the sum of 100 as attorney's fees, and ordering the foreclosure
of the mortgage upon failure of Eladio Ramos to pay the judgment within ninety
(90) days from the date the decision becomes final. The decision was rendered
on August 24, 1939 .
As Eladio Ramos failed to pay the judgment within the period therein specified,
on motion of the plaintiff, the court ordered the sale at public auction of the
mortgaged properties, which were sold to the plaintiff as the highest bidder
and the provincial sheriff issued the corresponding deed of the sale in his
favor. The sale was confirmed by the court on April 1, 1941 . On August 21, 1947 , Romualdo Rivera sold the
properties to Felipa Lopez, who later filed a motion praying that she be placed
in possession thereof. This motion was granted on September 22, 1947 . As the petitioners did not
heed the order, they were summoned by the court to explain why they should no
be punished for contempt for their refusal to comply with the writ of
possession, to which they answered contending that said writ partakes of the
nature of an action and as it was issued after more than five years, the court
acted in excess of its jurisdiction, and that the sale conducted by the sheriff
was illegal because petitioners were not properly served with summons as
defendants in the foreclosure suit. The explanation given by petitioners having
been found to be unsatisfactory, the court insisted in its order and threatened
to punish the petitioners as for contempt of court if they failed to obey the
order.
ISSUES: Whether or not the order of the court dated
September 22, 1947, directing the issuance of a writ of possession to place
respondent Felipa Lopez in possession of the properties purchased by her from
the mortgage.
Whether or not the decision rendered by the lower court on August 24, 1939 in civil case No. 7668,
ordering the foreclosure of the mortgage excluded by Eladio Ramos on the
properties in question is valid.
HELD: The
second issue raised by the petitioner is not also taken, for the simple reason
that the issuance of a writ of possession in a foreclosure proceedings is not
an execution of judgment within Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, but
is merely a ministerial and complementary duty of the Court can undertake even
after the lapses of five (5) years, provided the statute of limitations and the
rights of the third persons have not intervened in the meantime (Rivera vs.
Rupac, 61 Phil. 201). This is the correct interpretation of section 6, Rule 39,
in relation to section 3, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. This is a case where
the judgment involved is already final executed, and the properties mortgaged
sold by order of the court, and the properties mortgaged sold by order of the
court, and purchaser thereof has transferred them to a third person, who
desires to be placed in their possession.
The Court is of the opinion that the claim of the petitioners can not be
sustained for the reason that it is in the nature of a collateral attach to a
judgment which on its face is valid and regular and has become final long ago.
It is a well-known rule that a judgment, which on its face is valid and
regular, can only be attacked in a separate action brought principally for the
purpose (Gomez vs. Concepcion, 47 Phil. 717)
