1. Bernardo Valdevieso vs Candelario Damalerio and Aurea C.
Damalerio deed of sale in favor of petitioner was not enough as a succeeding step had to be taken, which was the
February 17, 2005
Facts:
On 05 December 1995, Bernardo Valdevieso (petitioner) bought from spouses Lorenzo and Elenita Uy
a parcel of land. The deed of sale was not registered, nor was the title of the land transferred to
petitioner. It came to pass that on 19 April 1996, spouses Candelario and Aurea Damalerio
(respondents) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for a sum of money against spouses
Lorenzo and Elenita Uy with application for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment. On 23
April 1996, the trial court issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment by virtue of which the property,
then still in the name of Lorenzo Uy but which had already been sold to petitioner, was levied. The levy
was duly recorded in the Register of Deeds. On 06 June 1996, TCT No. T-30586 in the name of Lorenzo
Uy was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT No. T-74439 was issued in the name of petitioner. This new
TCT carried with it the attachment in favor of respondents. On 14 August 1996, petitioner filed a third-
party claim to discharge or annul the attachment levied on the property covered by TCT No. T-74439
on the ground that the said property belongs to him and no longer to Lorenzo and Elenita Uy. The trial
court ruled for the petitioner. Respondents sought reconsideration thereof which was denied by the
trial court. From the unfavorable resolution of the trial court in the third-party claim, respondents
appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the resolution. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration but this was denied by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this Petition for Review on
Certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not a registered writ of attachment on the land is a superior lien over that of an earlier
unregistered deed of sale?
Ruling:
We agree with the respondents.
The law applicable to the facts of this case is Section 51 of P.D. No. 1529. Said Section provides:
Sec. 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. - An owner of registered land may
convey, mortgage, lease, charge, or otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws. He
may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law.
But no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to convey or
affect registered land, shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a
contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make
registration.
The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons
are concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the registration shall be made in the office of the
Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies.
It should also be observed that, at the time of the attachment of the property on 23 April 1996, the
spouses Uy were still the registered owners of said property. Under the cited law, the execution of the
registration of the sale from the spouses Uy to him. Insofar as third persons are concerned, what
validly transfers or conveys a persons interest in real property is the registration of the deed. Thus,
when petitioner bought the property on 05 December 1995, it was, at that point, no more than a
private transaction between him and the spouses Uy. It needed to be registered before it could bind
third parties, including respondents. When the registration finally took place on 06 June 1996, it was
already too late because, by then, the levy in favor of respondents, pursuant to the preliminary
attachment ordered by the General Santos City RTC, had already been annotated on the title.
The settled rule is that levy on attachment, duly registered, takes preference over a prior unregistered
sale. This result is a necessary consequence of the fact that the property involved was duly covered by
the Torrens system which works under the fundamental principle that registration is the operative act
which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land.
The preference created by the levy on attachment is not diminished even by the subsequent
registration of the prior sale. This is so because an attachment is a proceeding in rem. It is against the
particular property, enforceable against the whole world. The attaching creditor acquires a specific lien
on the attached property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the
attachment or levy itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the property attached is an indebted
thing and a virtual condemnation of it to pay the owners debt. The lien continues until the debt is paid,
or sale is had under execution issued on the judgment, or until the judgment is satisfied, or the
attachment discharged or vacated in some manner provided by law.
Thus, in the registry, the attachment in favor of respondents appeared in the nature of a real lien when
petitioner had his purchase recorded. The effect of the notation of said lien was to subject and
subordinate the right of petitioner, as purchaser, to the lien. Petitioner acquired ownership of the land
only from the date of the recording of his title in the register, and the right of ownership which he
inscribed was not absolute but a limited right, subject to a prior registered lien of respondents, a right
which is preferred and superior to that of petitioner.
The appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution are hereby affirmed.
2. Philippine Cotton Corporation vs Naraindas Gagoomal
544 SCRA 185 – Civil Law – Land Titles and Deeds – Reconstitution of Land – Annotation by the Registry
of Deeds
FACTS: The Pacific Mills Corporation owned 5 parcels of land in Quezon City covered by four
certificates of title. Pacific Mills sold the land to Naraindas Gagoomal and Engracio Ang in 1979.
In 1983, Philippine Cotton Corporation won a case in the lower court against Pacific Mills which led to
the attachment of the 5 parcels of land previously owned by Pacific Mills. Pacific Mills appealed until it
reached the Supreme Court.
While the case was pending in the SC, the QC Registry of Deeds was razed by fire thereby destroying all
records. In 1992, Pacific Mills filed for a reconstitution of land. It was granted but it was immediately
cancelled in favor of Ang and Gagoomal. Subsequently, Ang and Gagoomal received clean TCTs.
Meanwhile, Philippine Cotton received a favorable judgment from the SC and they requested the
Register of Deeds to annotate the same on the titles issued to And and Gagoomal. The Register of
Deeds then annotated the said titles and then sent a letter to Ang and Gagoomal to surrender their
duplicates.
Ang and Gagoomal petitioned for the removal of the annotation. Philippine Cotton argued that the RD
can validly annotate a Supreme Court decision on the said titles and that the same is its ministerial
duty.
ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine Cotton’s contention is correct.
HELD: No. Under the circumstances, the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City should and could have
properly refused such request instead of immediately annotating it. In the same light, “The Register of
Deeds may likewise properly refuse registration of an order attachment when it appears that the title
involved is not in the name of the defendant and there is no evidence submitted to indicate that the
said defendant has any present or future interest in the property covered by the titles.”
Note that in the case won by Philippine Cotton before the SC, the defendant therein was Pacific Mills.
Ang and Gagoomal acquired the property before the resolution of the case, hence, the annotation is
not valid because Ang and Gagoomal were not parties to the said case.
3. CARUMBA v. CA
Ponente: Reyes, J.B.L.
Vendor: Spouses Amado Canuto & Nemesia Ibasco
Vendee: (1) Spouses Amado Carumba & Benita Canuto; (2) Santiago Balbuena
Point: Case exception to the rule that in the case of a double sale, registration in good faith prevails
over possession.
Facts:
1. Subject land: a parcel of “partly residential, partly coconut” land (with periphery area of
359.09 square meters) in Camarines Sur
2. April 12, 1955 – VENDOR sold subject land to VENDEE1 by virtue of a "Deed of Sale of
Unregistered Land with Covenants of Warranty" for the sum of P350.00. The deed of sale was never
registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur, and the Notary, Mr. Vicente Malaya,
was not then an authorized notary public in the place.
3. January 21, 1957 – a complaint for sum of money was filed by VENDEE2 against the VENDOR
before the Justice of the Peace Court of Iriga, Camarines Sur. Such complaint ripened into a civil case of
which a decision was later on rendered dated April 15, 1957 in favour of VENDEE2 against the
VENDOR.
4. Oct 1, 1968 -- the ex-officio Sheriff of Camarines Sur issued a "Definite Deed of Sale of the
property in favour of VENDEE2. Such instrument of sale was registered before the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur. The aforesaid property was declared for taxation purposes in the
name of VENDEE2.
CFI: Ruled in favour of VENDEE1. The court, based on its findings, declared VENDEE1 the owner of the
property under a consummated sale because after the execution of the sale, they immediately took
possession of the land planting thereon bananas, coffee and other vegetables thereon. Also held as
void the the execution levy made by the sheriff and nullified the sale in favour of VENDEE2.
CA: Reversed CFI and ruled in favour of VENDEE2. There having been a double sale of the land,
VENDEE2’s title was superior to that of VENDEE1 under Article 1544 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, since the execution sale had been properly registered in good faith and the sale to
VENDEE1 was not recorded.
Issue/s:
1. Who is the real owner of the land?
Held + Rationale:
1. VENDEE1 is the real owner.
Article 1544 finds no application in the case at bar, even if VENDEE2, the later vendee, was ignorant of
the prior sale made by his judgment debtor in favor of VENDEE1.
Under Section 35 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, the purchaser of unregistered land at a
sheriff's execution sale only steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor, and merely acquires the
latter's interest in the property sold as of the time the property was levied upon.
While the time of the levy does not clearly appear, it could not have been made prior to 15 April 1957,
when the decision against the former owners of the land was rendered in favor of Balbuena. But the
deed of sale in favor of Canuto had been executed two years before, on 12 April 1955, and while only
embodied in a private document, the same, coupled with the fact that the buyer (VENDEE1) had taken
possession of the unregistered land sold, sufficed to vest ownership on the said buyer. When the levy
was made by the Sheriff, therefore, the judgment debtor no longer had dominical interest nor any real
right over the land that could pass to the purchaser at the execution sale. Hence VENDEE2 must yield
to VENDEE1.
Arrha De Leon