FRANCISCA ROXAS AND EUSTAQUIO SALVADOR, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. TIRSO CRUZ, SILVERIO CRUZ AND SIMEON CRUZ, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

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 per 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, 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 Espanol-Filipino
vs. Palanoa, 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.