Ramos vs.

Manalac
FACTS: Ramos family executed power of attorney in favor of their brother Eladio Ramos. Eladio was given the authority to encumber, mortgage and transfer in favor of any person a parcel of land situated in Bayambang, Pangasinan. He executed a mortgage under Rivera together with another parcel of land, to guarantee the payment of loan of 300, with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum. Eladio Ramos failed to pay the obligation on its date of maturity. Rivera filed an action to foreclosure the mortgage, making Ramos defendants. Summons were served only upon Eladio Ramos, who acknowledge the service in his own behalf and in that services of Attorney Lauro C. Maiquez, who put in his appearance for all the defendants, and submitted an answer in their behalf. The court ordered Eladio Ramos to pay to the plaintiff his obligation of 300, with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, from August 9, 1934, until its full payment, plus the sum of 100 as attorney's fees, and ordering the foreclosure of the mortgage upon failure of Eladio Ramos to pay the judgment within ninety (90) days from the date the decision becomes final. Eladio Ramos failed to pay the judgment within the period. The court ordered the sale at public auction of the mortgaged properties, which were sold Rivera (highest bidder). Rivera sold properties to Felipa Lopez, who later filed a motion praying that she be placed in possession. Ramos did not heed the order. He was ummoned by the court to explain why they should not be punished for contempt for their refusal to comply with the writ of possession. Ramos answered contending that said writ partakes of the nature of an action and as it was issued after more than five years, the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction, and that the sale conducted by the sheriff was illegal because petitioners were not properly served with summons as defendants in the foreclosure suit. ISSUE:

1. WON decision of lower court ordering foreclosure of mortgage excluded by ELADIO RAMOS is valid. 2. WON order directing issuance of writ of possession to place LOPEZ in possession of properties purchased by her from mortgagee valid.
HELD: 1. Yes. Nature of a collateral attack to a judgment which on its face is valid and regular and has become final long ago. Valid judgment can only be attached in separate action brought principally for the purpose. Granting that RAMOS family were not served, defect in service was cured when RAMOS voluntarily appeared and answered the complaint thru their attorney of record. Since

Attorney Maiquez appeared for RAMOS, it must be presumed him to have been authorized by them.

2. Yes. Issuance of a writ of possession in a foreclosure proceeding is not an execution of judgment but a ministerial and complementary duty of the court. It can undertake even after the lapse of five (5) years, provided the statute of limitations and the rights of third persons have not intervened. SEC 6, RULE 39/ SEC 3, RULE 70: Judgment is already final, properties mortgaged sold by order of the court, purchaser thereof has transferred them to a 3rd person, who desires to be placed in their possession.
After a sale has been made under a decree in a foreclosure suit, court has the power to give possession to the purchaser. Purchaser will not be driven to an action at law to obtain possession. The power of the court to issue a process and place the purchaser in possession, rests upon the ground that it has power to enforce its own decrees and thus avoid circuitous action and vexatious litigation. In a foreclosure suit, 3rd person not a party intervening and debtor continues in possession of the real property mortgaged, a writ of possession is a necessary remedy to put an end to the litigation. Duty of the competent court to issue a writ so that the purchaser may be placed in the possession of the property which he purchased at the public auction sale and become his by virtue of the final decree confirming the sale.