Palma v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Reynaldo S. Palma and Zenaida Palma purchased two Hino Diesel Trucks from private respondent for P104,112.00, payable in installments, with interest and attorney's fees stipulated. They executed promissory notes and a chattel mortgage over the trucks. The Palmas made an initial payment but failed to pay subsequent installments. Private respondent filed a complaint for collection and sought a writ of preliminary attachment. Procedural History: A writ of attachment was issued and served on the Palmas' property. One truck was attached, and the parts of the other were recovered. The Palmas were declared in default for failure to file an answer. The trial court rendered judgment ordering the Palmas to pay the outstanding balance, interest, premium for the attachment bond, attorney's fees, and costs. A writ of execution was returned unsatisfied. The Palmas filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, alleging improper service of summons, which was denied. The trial court subsequently denied their motion for reconsideration. An alias writ of execution was issued, and the attached real property was sold at public auction to private respondent. After the redemption period expired, the Sheriff's Deed of Absolute Sale was executed and registered. Private respondent's motion for confirmation of sale was initially denied for lack of notice but later granted after proper notice and opposition from the Palmas. The Palmas appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Petition: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in toto. Reynaldo S. Palma died during the pendency of the case in the Court of Appeals, and only Zenaida M. Palma filed the present petition for review on certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in denying the Petition for Relief from Judgment and motion for reconsideration, thereby violating petitioner's right to due process. Whether the trial court erred in rendering judgment for the entire purchase price without deducting the value of the attached trucks. Whether the writ of execution, subsequent public auction, and confirmation of sale of the petitioner's real property were valid and legal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not acting upon petitioner's motions dated July 8, 1976, and July 20, 1976.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of due process and the denial of the Petition for Relief from Judgment: The Court found that the petitioner's claim of improper service of summons was improbable due to material inconsistencies in her statements regarding who received the summons and when she discovered it. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court by filing a Petition for Relief from Judgment, which prayed for affirmative relief and a new trial on the merits. Such an appearance, even if initially intended to question jurisdiction, becomes a submission to the court's authority when other non-jurisdictional grounds are raised or when affirmative relief is sought. This act effectively waived any defect in the original service of summons, thereby curing any potential violation of due process. On the issue of rendering judgment for the entire purchase price without deduction: The Court reiterated the remedies available to a vendor under Article 1484 of the Civil Code when the price of personal property sold on installment is not paid. It noted that the private respondent elected the remedy of exacting fulfillment of the obligation by filing an action for collection, rather than canceling the sale or foreclosing the chattel mortgage. The Court clarified that in an action for specific performance, the judgment can be executed against all properties of the vendee. The mere attachment of the trucks did not automatically convert the remedy into a foreclosure, and since there was no showing of the trucks' value at the time of attachment or their subsequent sale, no deduction from the purchase price was warranted. On the validity of the writ of execution, public auction, and confirmation of sale: The Court pointed out that the petitioner failed to file an appeal from the trial court's decision dated September 29, 1967, within the reglementary period. Consequently, the decision became final and executory. The issuance of a writ of execution upon a final and executory judgment is a matter of right and a ministerial duty of the court. The Court also noted that the attachment of the real property was registered on June 13, 1967, prior to the sale of the property to the Cresinis on September 1, 1967. An attachment creates a specific lien on the property. The failure of the petitioner to redeem the property after the expiration of the redemption period vested title in the private respondent. The Court clarified that unlike in a foreclosure sale, confirmation of a sale on execution is not always necessary, and in this case, the sale was eventually confirmed by the trial court. On the alleged failure of the appellate court to act on motions: The Court found this contention unfounded, stating that the records showed the appellate court did act upon the mentioned motions in its Resolution dated August 3, 1976.
Main Doctrine
A voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court through a petition for relief from judgment, even if it seeks to set aside a default judgment, constitutes a waiver of any objection to the court's jurisdiction over the person. Furthermore, in a contract of sale of personal property payable in installments where the vendor opts to exact fulfillment of the obligation, the recovery of the unpaid balance is permissible, and the attachment of the property does not automatically convert the remedy into a foreclosure of the chattel mortgage, especially when the value of the attached property is not established.