In civil  cases  Nos.  14236 and 14237 of the Municipal Court of Manila, which were  for the  recovery of certain sums of money due the plaintiff Roman Leoncio from the defendants Antonio  Maglalang, Severino D. Valencia and the latter's wife Catalina S. L. Valencia, the parties entered into an amicable settlement whereby the defendant Antonio Maglalang acknowledged being indebted to thei plaintiff in the aggregate sum of P1,800, without interest, and obligated himself to pay the said sum in 24 monthly installments of P76 each, commencing with the month of April, 1951, payment to be made on or before the 5th day of each month.

In the same settlement, the  defendant spouses Severino D.  Valencia and Catalina S.  L. Valencia,  on their part, undertook to guarantee payment  of  the obligation  thus assumed by defendant Maglalang  in accordance with the terms thereof and to pay the amount of said obligation in case Maglalang should fail to pay.

Upon submission of the settlement to the court, the judge thereof rendered judgment in accordance with its terms and enjoined the parties to comply therewith.

For failure of the defendant Antonio Maglalang to comply with the judgment, a writ of  execution was issued against him and his guarantors, the said Severino D. Valencia and his  wife.  But  after properties worth  P1,350  had  been levied upon, the guarantors filed a motion to stay the execution, offering to file a bond to answer for  the portion of the judgment that may  not be statisfied with the properties already levied upon, and at the same time asking that they  be released as such  guarantors  on  the ground that, without their knowledge and consent, plaintiff Roman Leoncio had had secret agreements with the defendant Maglalang, giving the latter more time to pay his debt.

Resolving the above  motion,  the court,  after hearing issued an order dated September 28, 1951, which  states: 

"After taking into consideration  the facts  in the motion presented, it appears that Severino D. Valencia and Catalina S. L, Valencia are  the guarantors of Antonio Maglalang and not his co-defendants. In compliance with the  writ of execution issued, whereby Severino Valencia and Catalina S.  L.  Valencia were erroneously made  defendants, the Sheriff of Manila attached articles from  Maglalang conservatively priced with an aggregate sum of One  Thousand Three Hundred Fifty  (P1,350) Pesos,  that are now in the  possession  of plaintiff Roman Leoncio, leaving the sum of Four Hundred Fifty (P450) Pesos as  the unsecured balance out of the  alleged indebtedness of One Thousand  Eight Hundred  (P1,800)  Pesos without interest. It was also  shown to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Court and  without the  objection of plaintiff Roman  Leoncio and  his counsel  at the hearing that debtor Maglalang and plaintiff have had secret agreements  completely  ignoring  the  guarantors, Severino  D. Valencia and  Catalina S. L. Valencia,  giving the debtor an extension  of time without the knowledge and consent of the latter. 

"Upon filing of a bond of Six Hundred (P600) Pesos, the motion to stay the  execution against  Severino D. Valencia  and Catalina S. L. Valencia is  hereby granted and their releases  from all the responsibilities as guarantors ordered."

Reconsideration of the above  order was denied.  But Roman Leoncio did not appeal.  However, after the period for appeal had elapsed he sued out a writ of certiorari in the Court of  First Instance of Manila to have the said order annulled on the grounds that it was rendered with grave abuse of discretion and without  jurisdiction.

The Court of First Instance of Manila granted the writ and declared the order in question null and void  insofar as it  released the guarantors,  on  the  theory that  the order "was a virtual amendment of the decision of the respondent judge, dated April 14,  1951, based  on  the  amicable settlement of the parties." On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment  of  the court of first  instance was affirmed, the appellate court declaring that "the  order complained of was a patent nullity, as it was issued when the respondent Judge had long lost his jurisdiction over the cases which have been terminated or closed by agreement of the parties, converted into judgment." The case is now before us  on appeal by certiorari.

The decisive issue is whether or not the municipal court had jurisdiction to order the release of the appellants from their  undertaking as guarantors under  the  compromise judgment.

In declaring that the  municipal court had no such jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals appears to  have  proceeded on the theory that the order of release was an  alteration of a judgment which had long become final.

We cannot subscribe to this theory. The municipal court decreed the release for  the  reason stated  in its  order that "It was also shown to  the satisfaction of the  court and without the objection of plaintiff Roman  Leoncio and his counsel at the hearing that  debtor Maglalang and plaintiff have had secret agreements completely ignoring the guarantors, Severino  O. Valencia and Catalina  S. L. Valencia, giving the debtor an extension of time without knowledge and consent of the latter."   Assuming  this statement to be true,  we think it  should be clear that  the order  was  in accordance with the judgment and not an alteration thereof. For the obligation assumed by the appellants under the judgment is that of mere guarantors whose rights and obligations are to be determined, in the absence of stipulation to the contrary, by the provisions  of the Civil Code. Under Article  2079, an extension granted by the creditor to the debtor without the consent of the guarantor  extinguishes the guarantee.  Hence, if it is true as stated  in the order complained of that the creditor in  the present case granted an extension of the principal debtor without the consent  of the guarantors, there can be no  question that the latter were  thereby released.

It is  contended, however, that in his  motion for reconsideration  of the order, the creditor denied having given such extension and that in any event, there is no proof that such  extension  was really granted. But, as pointed out by appellants, the  mere genial of the creditor cannot override the finding of  the  municipal court that the  fact that an extension of time was given to the debtor was  shown to the satisfaction of the court and without objection of the creditor. The creditor  cannot now say that  there is no proof in the record to support that finding since the municipal court is not a court of record. If it is true,  as contended by  the creditor, that  there was really no such proof, then his remedy should have been to appeal to the  court of first instance, so that the  question of whether the  creditor had really given an extension without the consent of the guarantors could  have been the  subject of evidence and the creditor could then have presented proof to show the absence of such an agreement. But this he did not do, and as the case now stands, we have to assume that the finding  of fact contained  in tne order of the municipal court  was based on sufficient evidence.

In  view of the  foregoing, the decision  appealed  from is reversed, with costs against the appellee.

Paras,  C. J., Bengzon, Padilla,  Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.