1. REDELIVERY BOND; LIABILITY OF SURETIES; NATURE OF JUDGMENT UPON STIPULATION. — An analysis of the terms of the redelivery bond shows unmistakably that the sureties bound themselves to answer solidarily for the obligations of the defendants to the plaintiffs in the amount of P912.04 "si fuera declarado por este juzgado que los referidos demandantes tenian derecho a la posesion de dichos bienes y al pago de la cantidad por sentencia firme recobren contra los demandados." In other words, the liability of the sureties was fixed and conditioned on the finality of the judgment rendered regardless of whether the decision was based on the consent of the parties or on the merits. A judgment entered on a stipulation is nonetheless a judgment of the court because consented to by the parties. In the absence of fraud and collusion we see no good reason why sureties on a replevin bond should not be bound by a judgment thus obtained. (Manila Railroad Co. v. Arzadon, 20 Phil., 452; Donovan v. Etna Indemn. Co., Cal. A. 723. 733: 103 P. . 365.)

This is an appeal interposed by sureties Francisco Lorenzo and Concepcion Hizon from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga holding them liable on their redelivery bond for the obligations of their co-defendants Francisco Macapayag and Roman Pineda.

It appears that on February 7, 1936, plaintiffs Francisca Mercado and Anastacio Lising filed an action against defendants Francisco Macapayag and Roman Pineda for the manual delivery of 370 cavanes of palay in the possession of the latter valued at P1,184 at P3.20 a cavan. Following the filing of the required bond by said plaintiffs a warrant of seizure was issued by the court and served and returned by the provincial sheriff of Pampanga. Defendants, however, claimed part of the palay seized by the sheriff amounting to 142 cavanes, 12 gantas and 4