G.R. No. 44234 ; August 30, 1937
FRANCISCA ROXAS and EUSTAQUIO SALVADOR, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. TIRSO CRUZ, SILVERIO CRUZ and SIMEON CRUZ, defendant-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiffs sued defendants for a sum of money. The sheriff certified that copies of the summons and complaint were delivered to each defendant by leaving them at their residence with Josefa Cruz, the wife of defendant Tirso Cruz and sister-in-law of the other defendants. An attorney, G.T. Antaran, appeared for the defendants and filed an answer. Later, a pleading signed by the plaintiffs’ attorney and defendant Tirso Cruz was filed, stating the parties agreed to a judgment ordering defendants to pay P3,000 jointly and severally. The court rendered judgment based on this agreement. Over a year later, after execution of the judgment and a sale of mortgaged property, defendants Silvino Cruz and Simeon Cruz filed a petition to annul the judgment and its execution as to them, alleging they were never summoned, had no knowledge of the case, and did not authorize Attorney Antaran to represent them or enter into the agreement.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly denied the petition of defendants Silvino Cruz and Simeon Cruz to annul the judgment and its execution.

RULING

Yes, the trial court’s denial is affirmed. The judgment on its face appears legal and final, rendered with jurisdiction. A judgment valid on its face cannot be attacked as void for lack of jurisdiction over the parties through a collateral proceeding or a mere petition filed long after its finality. The proper remedy for the defendants claiming lack of summons and unauthorized representation is to bring a direct action to annul the judgment, not the proceeding they followed. The petition was also filed only after sixteen months, with no appeal, motion for new trial, or availment of the remedy under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure having been taken previously.

AI Generated by Armztrong.