This is an appeal  from the  order  dated November  3, 1959 of  the Court  of First Instance of Pangasinan, Dagupan  Branch,  Hon.  Emmanuel  M.  Munoz,  Presiding Judge,  denying defendants' motion  to  quash  the writ  of execution.   The  appeal, originally brought to  the Court of Appeals, was certified to this Court  on  the  ground  that only questions of law are involved.

In an action for the collection of a sum  of money in the lower court,  the parties   hereto  entered into a  compromise agreement which reads:

"Now  come  the  parties,  assisted  by their  respective attorneys, and  to this Hon. Court respectfully  submit the following agreement and   settlement of his  case:

1.  That  the defendants  herein admit   having  been  indebted  to the plaintiffs in the amount of P6,475.26 and hereby confess judgment thereto in  favor of the plaintiffs;

2. That herein defendants agree and covenant to effect payment of said obligation on  the  following terms:

(a) That the  sum of P1,000.00 should be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs on  or  about January  20, 1959;
(b)  That the defendants likewise should pay to  the  plaintiffs the sum of P475.26 on or about March 20
(c)  That the   remaining  balance of  P5,000.00 shall be paid by the defendants to the. plaintiffs   within a period of one  (1) year at  12%  interest  from March 20,  1951)  in equal monthly installments  with  corresponding  interest as  computed.

3. That  to  secure  the  faithful  compliance   and   performance of said obligation, defendants herein,  by  those  presents, cede  and convey  by  way cf security,  free from  any  lien the following real properties  which are owned  by them,  and  all and whatever proprietary rights, interest, or participation which  they  have therein: (Here follows  a description of the  parcel of land.)

4. In the event defendants fail to  pay the above-mentioned obligation under the terms herein  set forth,  or in   default of two  of  the installments,  whatever  balance remaining shall   immediately become due and payable and herein plaintiffs can secure the immediate execution of the judgment in  the case, and the defendants waive  whatever right a mortgagor m;iy   have  short   of foreclosure proceedings. A penal  clause  is inserted in  this agreement  to  the effect  that if defendants fail to perform  their obligation  an additional  10% shall be charged in addition to the   interest, agreed upon,  to cover damages of plaintiffs."

This agreement was  approved  by the lower court  in  its decision dated December  12, 1959  in  which it enjoined the parties to comply with  the  terms  of   the agreement.

Alter  paying the  first two installments  of  P1,000 and P475.26,   however, the   defendants  failed  to make further payments, prompting the   plaintiff's to  ask for the execution of the decision.

The trial  court granted  the motion and directed the issuance  of a writ  of  execution.   For some  reason, the Writ expired  without being served and so,  an alias  writ of execution  was  later  issued,  commanding  the sheriff  to cause the satisfaction of  the balance  of P5,000, plus  P300 as interest and P500 as penalty, out of the three parcels  of land given as security and   providing that "if the three (3)  above described  real  properties  are not sufficient or cannot be found whereof to satisfy this execution and lawful fees  thereon, then we command you, that of the other goods and  chattels of the said defendants,  to make the said sum of money in the manner required by law * * *,"

Defendants moved  to quash  the writ on  the ground that the above quoted portion varies the decision of the court and, when their motion  was denied, they appealed.

The main issue hinges on the interpretation of the judgment of the court based upon the compromise of the parties. Is the writ of execution  issued by the court in accordance  with the judgment?

Defendants  contend  that it must  first  be shown that the three  lots are  insufficient before  the sheriff  may be authorized to levy on  other properties. In support of their stand, defendants  cite Section 34  of Rule  39 of the Rules of Court which provides:

"When  an execution issued in accordance with law against  the property of a judgment  debtor, or any of several debtors in  the same judgment, is returned unsatisfied, in  whole or in  part,  the judgment  creditor, at any time after  such return is made, shall be entitled to an order from a judge of the Court of First Instance of the province in which the judgment was rendered or from which the execution was  returned,  requiring such  judgment  debtor  to appear and  answer concerning his  property  and income before  such judge of  the  Court  of  First Instance, or  before a  commissioner appointed by him, at a specified time and place; and such proceedings may thereupon be had for the application of the property and income of the judgment  debtor  towards the satisfaction  of the judgment. But no judgment debtor shall  be  so  required to appear before a judge of first instance or commissioner but of the province in which such  debtor resides or  is found."

The above- quoted provision  applies to a situation where execution cannot be satisfied because the judgment debtor has concealed all his properties in order to prevent execution.  Here there is no concealment of properties.

While it is true that the compromise agreement refers to the three parcels of land given as security for the satisfaction of the judgment, yet the said judgment  did not state or limit that if the said properties are found insufficient the other properties of the defendants may not be held liable.

We believe that the order of writ of execution substantially conforms with  the judgment.   However,  execution should  first be directed against the three parcels  of  land before the other properties of the defendants may be levied.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed with costs against the defendants.

Bengzon, C. J.,  Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,  Concepcion,  Barrera,   Paredes,  Dizon,  and  Makalintal,  JJ., concur.