The defendant, the Provincial Sheriff of Surigao, on the basis of the notice of execution issued by the first instance, offered for sale and ordered the sale of the sawmill machinery and equipment in question. These machines and equipment had been transported and installed in a sawmill building in Lianga, surigao del Sur, which belonged to Golden Pacific Sawmill, Inc. to whom it had sold them on February 16, 1959 (date following the decision of the lower court, but before the handover by the sheriff).chanroblesvirtualualawlibrarychanroble virtual legal library It is a general rule in this jurisdiction, a judgment based on a compromise agreement is not open to challenge and is immediately enforced, unless an application is made for fraud, misconduct or coercion. (De los Reyes vs. Ugarte, 75 Phil. 505; Lapena vs Morfe, G.R. no L-10089, 31. July 1957) chanroble virtual legal library Before this Court, the applicant claims that the Court of Appeal erred (1) in finding that the transfer of the judgment on the special agreement to a court opened in January 1959 was sufficient communication; and (2) not to resolve the other issues raised before him, namely (a) the legality of the public auction by the sheriff and (b) the nature of the machines in question, whether mobile or stationary.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library SECTION 1. How the verdict was rendered.

– all judgments determining the merits of cases must be prepared and signed by the judge personally and directly in writing, the facts and law on which they are based must be clearly indicated and filed with the registrar of the court. In the case of an interim order certified as true and prohibited, it is apparent from the file that, on 28 January 1959, the defendant judge of the Agusan Court of First Instance delivered a judgment in an open court (Annex `A`) on the basis of a compromise agreement between the parties.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles Virtual Legal Library The Court of Appeal issued an interim order against the sheriff on 8 December 1959, but it turned out that he had already sold the machines in question at a public auction on 4 December 1959, as planned. Defendant Grace Park Engineering, Inc. was the sole bidder for P15,000.00, although the certificate sale was not yet complete. The Court of Appeal set up the sheriff to suspend the issuance of a certificate of sale on the sawmills and equipment it sold on December 4, 1959 until the case was finally decided. On November 9, 1960, the Court of Appeal issued the decision cited above.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles Virtual Legal Library The petitioner`s assertion that he was not informed or informed of the decision is untenable. . .

.