Petition for certiorari was filed seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan regarding a foreclosed parcel of land. Petitioners question the validity of the CFI ruling that they will be held in contempt for refusing to vacate the land. The said property, being collateral for a loan to a Mr. Rivera, was foreclosed due to non-payment of loan amount and its interest within the prescribed periods. Mr. Rivera later sold the property to Ms. Lopez, who later filed petition that she be placed in possession of the land. The petitioners question the ruling of the court.
Whether or not:
(1) The decision of the lower court (CFI) is valid;
(2) Directing the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of Felipa Lopez is valid; and,
(3) (Possible Legal Ethics Issue) the term “appearance” would include only presence in courts.
YES on first two issues. NO on the third issue. Petition was dismissed. Cost against the petitioners.
Claim of the petitioners as to the validity of the decision cannot be sustained for the reason that it is in a nature of collateral attack to judgment which on its face is valid and regular for a long time. It is a well known rule that a judgment, which on its face is valid and regular, can only be attacked in separate action brought principally for the purpose (Gomez vs. Concepcion, 47 Phil. 717).
The second issue was also not taken for the simple reason that the issuance of writ of possession in foreclosure proceedings is not an execution of judgment within the purview of Section 6 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, but is merely ministerial and complementary duty of the court.
In the third issue, the word or term “appearance” includes not only arguing a case before any such body but also filing a pleading in behalf of a client as “by simply filing a formal motion, plea or answer”.