G.R. No. 45158 June 2, 1994
ZENAIDA M. PALMA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND PRODUCTS, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Zenaida M. Palma and her husband Reynaldo purchased two Hino Diesel Trucks from private respondent on installment, executing promissory notes and a chattel mortgage. After making only an initial payment, they defaulted. Private respondent filed a complaint with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. The trial court issued the attachment order. Summons and related documents were served at the Palmas’ residence through a third party who refused acknowledgment. The sheriff attached one truck and the parts of another, as well as the Palmas’ real property in Kawit, Cavite, with the attachment annotated on the title. The Palmas were declared in default for failure to answer, and a decision was rendered against them. During this period, the Palmas sold the attached real property to the Cresinis. After the judgment became final, a writ of execution was issued. The Palmas filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, which was denied. The attached real property was sold at public auction to private respondent. After the redemption period lapsed, a Sheriff’s Deed was executed. The trial court confirmed the sheriff’s sale despite opposition from the Palmas, who argued the property had been sold to third parties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Reynaldo Palma died during the appeal, leaving Zenaida as the sole petitioner.

ISSUE

1. Whether there was proper service of summons upon petitioner.
2. Whether the trial court erred in rendering judgment for the entire purchase price without deducting the value of the attached trucks.
3. Whether the writ of execution, the subsequent auction sale, and the confirmation of sale of the real property were valid.
4. Whether petitioner’s motions before the appellate court were not acted upon, violating her right to due process.

RULING

1. Service of Summons: The petition is denied. The Court found that petitioner voluntarily submitted to the trial court’s jurisdiction by filing a Petition for Relief from Judgment, which prayed for injunctive relief and a new trial. An appearance for any purpose other than solely objecting to jurisdiction constitutes submission to the court’s authority. The trial court also noted inconsistencies in petitioner’s claim regarding receipt of the summons.
2. Deduction of Truck Value: The trial court did not err. Private respondent opted for the first remedy under Article 1484 of the Civil Code: to exact fulfillment of the obligation (collection of the unpaid balance). It did not elect to foreclose the chattel mortgage. The mere attachment of the trucks did not equate to foreclosure. Since there was no showing of the trucks’ valuation at attachment or their sale at auction, no deduction from the purchase price could be made.
3. Validity of Execution and Sale: The writ of execution and subsequent proceedings were valid. The trial court’s decision had become final and executory when the Petition for Relief was filed. Execution issues as a matter of right upon finality. The failure to redeem the property after the redemption period vested title in private respondent. The attachment, annotated before the sale to the Cresinis, created a specific lien on the property, making the subsequent sale subject to that lien.
4. Action on Motions: Petitioner’s claim that her motions were not acted upon is unfounded. The appellate court addressed them in a Resolution dated August 3, 1976.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto.