August 1937 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1937 > August 1937 Decisions >
G.R. No. 44234 August 30, 1937 - FRANCISCA ROXAS v. TIRSO CRUZ
064 Phil 678:
064 Phil 678:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 44234. August 30, 1937.]
FRANCISCA ROXAS and EUSTAQUIO SALVADOR, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TIRSO CRUZ, SILVERIO CRUZ and SIMEON CRUZ, Defendants-Appellants.
Valerio Amado for Appellants.
E. del Rosario for Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. JUDGMENT; PETITION FOR ANNULMENT. — Alleging that they had not been summoned, that they had no knowledge of this case and that they did not authorize attorney A to represent them much less, to enter into an agreement relative to the subject matter of the litigation, the defendants S. C. and S. C. asked for the annulment of the judgment rendered in said case and of the execution thereof, in so far as it affected them. The court denied this petition in its resolution of May 6, 1935, which is affirmed by this court on the ground that no appeal was taken from said judgment, no new trial was sought for the annulment thereof, the remedy provided by section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not availed of, and the above-stated petition for annulment was presented only after the lapse of sixteen months from the date the judgment in said case had been rendered.
2. ID.; ID.; INADEQUATE PROCEEDING. — According to the record, the judgment appears upon its face to be legal, rendered with jurisdiction and final in character. Whether or not it is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the parties, is a question of evidence and the validity thereof cannot be attacked upon this ground by means of the proceeding followed (Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921).
2. ID.; ID.; INADEQUATE PROCEEDING. — According to the record, the judgment appears upon its face to be legal, rendered with jurisdiction and final in character. Whether or not it is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the parties, is a question of evidence and the validity thereof cannot be attacked upon this ground by means of the proceeding followed (Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921).
D E C I S I O N
AVANCEÑA, C.J. :
This action was brought by the plaintiffs for the recovery of a certain sum of money from the defendants.
The record shows that on August 4, 1933, the sheriff of Manila certified that he had delivered copies of the summons and of the complaint to each of the defendants, by leaving them at their usual place of residence in the City of Manila and in the hands of Josefa Cruz, resident in the same house, who is the wife of the defendant Tirso Cruz and sister-in-law of the other defendants Silvino Cruz and Simeon Cruz, and of sufficient discretion to receive the copies in question. On the 23d of said month, G. T. Antaran appeared in the case as attorney for the defendants. On the 2d of the following September, Attorney Antaran filed an answer to the complaint in the name of said defendants. On October 20, 1933, there was filed in court a pleading signed by E. del Rosario, attorney for the plaintiffs, by G. T. Antaran, attorney for the defendants, and by the defendant Tirso Cruz, stating that both parties, assisted by their respective attorneys, agreed to have judgment rendered in said case, ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff the sum of P3,000, with interest thereon at 6 per cent annum. On October 23, 1933, the court rendered judgment therein in accordance with the terms of the foregoing agreement. On October 22, 1934, the court, the court, upon petition of the plaintiffs and after notifying the attorney for the defendants, issued a writ of execution of said judgment. On November 17, 1934, the sheriff of the City of Manila sold the mortgaged property at public auction, adjudicating it to the same plaintiff Francisca Roxas for the price of P1,500. On December 1, 1934, the court, upon petition of the attorney for the plaintiffs, confirmed this sale and ordered an alias execution for the sum of P1,684.86 representing the balance of the amount of the judgment not covered by the price obtained at the public auction sale. In said month of December, the sheriff issued the corresponding certificate of sale to the plaintiff Francisca Roxas.
On February 5, 1935, the defendants Silvino Cruz and Simeon Cruz filed a petition in court, praying for the annulment of the judgment rendered in said case and of the execution thereof in so far as it affected them, alleging that they were not summoned, that they had no knowledge of this case, and that they did not authorize Attorney Antaran to represent them, much less, to enter into an agreement relative to the subject matter of the litigation. Said petition was denied by the court in its resolution of May 6, 1935, from which this appeal was taken.
It appears from the foregoing that after judgment had been rendered on October 20, 1933, no appeal was taken therefrom, no new trial was sought for the annulment thereof, and the remedy provided by section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not availed of. The petition denied in the appealed resolution was filed only after the lapse of sixteen months.
According to the record, the judgment appears upon its face to be legal, rendered with jurisdiction, and final in character. Whether or not it is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the parties, is a question of evidence and the validity thereof cannot be attacked upon this ground by means of the proceeding followed (Banco Español- Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921).
Without prejudice to the action which the defendants Silvino Cruz and Simeon Cruz may bring for the purpose of attacking directly the validity of said judgment in another proceeding, the resolution appealed from is affirmed, with costs to the appellants. So ordered.
Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
The record shows that on August 4, 1933, the sheriff of Manila certified that he had delivered copies of the summons and of the complaint to each of the defendants, by leaving them at their usual place of residence in the City of Manila and in the hands of Josefa Cruz, resident in the same house, who is the wife of the defendant Tirso Cruz and sister-in-law of the other defendants Silvino Cruz and Simeon Cruz, and of sufficient discretion to receive the copies in question. On the 23d of said month, G. T. Antaran appeared in the case as attorney for the defendants. On the 2d of the following September, Attorney Antaran filed an answer to the complaint in the name of said defendants. On October 20, 1933, there was filed in court a pleading signed by E. del Rosario, attorney for the plaintiffs, by G. T. Antaran, attorney for the defendants, and by the defendant Tirso Cruz, stating that both parties, assisted by their respective attorneys, agreed to have judgment rendered in said case, ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff the sum of P3,000, with interest thereon at 6 per cent annum. On October 23, 1933, the court rendered judgment therein in accordance with the terms of the foregoing agreement. On October 22, 1934, the court, the court, upon petition of the plaintiffs and after notifying the attorney for the defendants, issued a writ of execution of said judgment. On November 17, 1934, the sheriff of the City of Manila sold the mortgaged property at public auction, adjudicating it to the same plaintiff Francisca Roxas for the price of P1,500. On December 1, 1934, the court, upon petition of the attorney for the plaintiffs, confirmed this sale and ordered an alias execution for the sum of P1,684.86 representing the balance of the amount of the judgment not covered by the price obtained at the public auction sale. In said month of December, the sheriff issued the corresponding certificate of sale to the plaintiff Francisca Roxas.
On February 5, 1935, the defendants Silvino Cruz and Simeon Cruz filed a petition in court, praying for the annulment of the judgment rendered in said case and of the execution thereof in so far as it affected them, alleging that they were not summoned, that they had no knowledge of this case, and that they did not authorize Attorney Antaran to represent them, much less, to enter into an agreement relative to the subject matter of the litigation. Said petition was denied by the court in its resolution of May 6, 1935, from which this appeal was taken.
It appears from the foregoing that after judgment had been rendered on October 20, 1933, no appeal was taken therefrom, no new trial was sought for the annulment thereof, and the remedy provided by section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not availed of. The petition denied in the appealed resolution was filed only after the lapse of sixteen months.
According to the record, the judgment appears upon its face to be legal, rendered with jurisdiction, and final in character. Whether or not it is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the parties, is a question of evidence and the validity thereof cannot be attacked upon this ground by means of the proceeding followed (Banco Español- Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921).
Without prejudice to the action which the defendants Silvino Cruz and Simeon Cruz may bring for the purpose of attacking directly the validity of said judgment in another proceeding, the resolution appealed from is affirmed, with costs to the appellants. So ordered.
Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
