Involuntary dealings

- As the phrase indicates, involuntary dealings with registered lands refer to certain kind of transactions
affecting such lands in which the cooperation of the registered owner is not needed. It may even be against
his will.

Attachment, nature and kind

- In general, an attachment is a writ issued at the institution or during the progress of an action, commanding
the sheriff or other public officer to attach the property, rights, credits, or effects of the defendant to satisfy
the demands of the plaintiff.
- Attachment may be classified into three kinds, namely:
o Preliminary attachment – is that issued at the institution or during the progress of an action. It is
the mesne process, liable to be dissolved at any time and the judgment upon which may or may not
affect the property seized.
o Garnishment — is an attachment by means of which plaintiff seeks to subject to his claim property
of the defendant in the hands of a third person called the garnishee, as well as money owed by such
third person to defendant. Garnishment proceedings are usually directed to personal property
o levy on execution — is the attachment issued after the final judgment in satisfaction thereof

Registration of attachments and other liens

- Under the provisions of Section 69 of P.D. 1529, an attachment or copy of any writ, order or process, in
order to create or preserve any lien, right or attachment upon registered land, may be filed and registered in
the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city in which the land lies, such writing to contain,
among other things, a reference to the number of the certificate of title of the land to be affected, and also if
the attachment, right, or lien is not claimed on all the land in any certificate of title, a description sufficiently
accurate for identification of the land intended to be affected.

Owner’s duplicate title not immediately required for annotation of attachment, etc.

- In every case where an attachment or other lien or adverse claim of any description is registered, and the
duplicate certificate is not presented at the time of the registration to the Register of Deeds, he shall
within thirty-six hours thereafter send notice by mail to the registered owner, stating that such papers have
been registered, and requesting him to send or produce the duplicate certificate in order that memorandum
of the attachment or other lien or adverse claim may be made thereon
- If the owner neglects or refuses to comply within a reasonable time, the Register of Deeds shall report the
matter to the court, and the court, after notice, shall enter an order to the owner to surrender his certificate
at a time and place to be named therein, and may enforce the order by suitable process. It is for the court
and not for the Administrator of Land Registration Authority to compel the surrender.

Entry of attachment in day book; sufficiency

- While the effect of registration retroacts as of the date of the entry in the day book of the Register of Deeds,
registration is not considered accomplished until and unless a memorandum of such document has been
made on the corresponding certificate of title. To hold that the mere entry of a document in the day book
without noting it on the certificate of title, is sufficient, Section 54 of P.D. No. 1529 nugatory and destroy one
of the principal features of Torrens system of registration, requiring that all encumbrances on the land or
special estates therein be shown or at least intimated upon the certificate of title.
- In involuntary registration, such as an attachment, levy upon execution, lis pendens and the like, entry
thereof in the day book is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse claim

What purchaser of attached property gets

 - When an attachment has been duly levied upon property, a purchaser thereof subsequent to the
attachment takes the property subject to the attachment. But, in determining priority between two
attachments on execution affecting the same property, it is not the priority of the execution sales held
pursuant thereto that will determine the preference, but the priority between the two attachments, that is,
the attachment previously registered is superior and preferred to a subsequent one.

Exception to bad faith rule due to previous knowledge

- Where the purchaser at a public auction sale had knowledge, prior to or at the time of the levy, of a previous
lien or encumbrance object of a third party claim, he does not come under the protection of the law. In such
case, his knowledge is equivalent to registration and taints his purchase with bad faith. But if knowledge of
any lien or encumbrance upon the property is acquired after the levy, the purchaser cannot be said to have
acted in bad faith in making the purchase and, therefore, such lien or encumbrance cannot affect his title.

Property redeemed by wife when not attachable

- Where the wife redeemed the land belonging to the conjugal partnership which was sold on execution, with
money obtained by her from her father, said land has become paraphernal and as such is beyond the reach
of further execution. She has acquired it by right of redemption as successor in interest of her husband.

CASES

Valdevieso vs. Damalerio

Land Titles; Sales; What validly transfers or conveys a person’s interest in real property is the registration of the
deed.—It is to be noted that though the subject land was deeded to petitioner as early as 05 December 1995, it was
not until 06 June 1996 that the conveyance was registered, and, during that interregnum, the land was subjected to
a levy on attachment. 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
deed of sale in favor of petitioner was not enough as a succeeding step had to be taken, which was the registration
of the sale from the spouses Uy to him. Insofar as third persons are concerned, what validly transfers or conveys a
person’s 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.

Same; Same; Attachments; A levy on attachment, duly registered, takes preference over a prior unregistered sale,
and the preference is not diminished even by the subsequent registration of the prior sale since an attachment is a
proceeding in rem.—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 owner’s 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.

Philippine Cotton Corporation vs. Gagoomal

Land Titles; Land Registration; Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529); Section 10 of P.D. No. 1529 merely
involves the general functions of the Register of Deeds, while Section 71 thereof relates to an attachment or lien in a
registered land in which the duplicate certificate was not presented at the time of the registration of the said lien or
attachment.—Petitioner would persuade this Court that it is the ministerial duty of the Register of Deeds to record
any encumbrance or lien on respondents’ existing TCTs. It cites, as proof of its supposition, Sections 10 and 71 of the
Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529), which are quoted as follows: Section 10. General functions of Registers
of Deeds.—The office of the Register of Deeds constitutes a public repository of records of instruments affecting
registered or unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in the province or city wherein such office is situated. It shall
be the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately register an instrument presented for registration dealing with
real or personal property which complies with all the requisites for registration. He shall see to it that said
instrument bears the proper documentary and science stamps and that the same are properly cancelled. If the
instrument is not registrable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and inform the presentor of such denial in
writing, stating the ground or reason therefor, and advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with
Section 117 of this Decree. x x x Section 71. Surrender of certificate in involuntary dealings.—If an attachment or
other lien in the nature of involuntary dealing in registered land is registered, and the duplicate certificate is not
presented at the time of registration, the Register of Deeds, shall, within thirty-six hours thereafter, send notice by
mail to the registered owner, stating that such paper has been registered, and requesting him to send or produce his
duplicate certificate so that a memorandum of the attachment or other lien may be made thereon. If the owner
neglects or refuses to comply within a reasonable time, the Register of Deeds shall report the matter to the court,
and it shall, after notice, enter an order to the owner to produce his certificate at a time and place named therein,
and may enforce the order by suitable process. (Italics supplied) The Court is not in accord with the stance of
petitioner. Section 10 of P.D. No. 1529 merely involves the general functions of the Register of Deeds, while Section
71 thereof relates to an attachment or lien in a registered land in which the duplicate certificate was not presented
at the time of the registration of the said lien or attachment.

Same; Same; Reconstitution of Titles; Sections 8 and 11 of R.A. No. 26 provide for the procedure for the notation of an
interest that did not appear in the reconstituted certificate of title, mandating that a petition be filed before a court
of competent jurisdiction.—A special law specifically deals with the procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens
certificates of title lost or destroyed. Under Section 4 of Act No. 26: Liens and other encumbrances affecting a
destroyed or lost certificate of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be
available, in the following order: (a) Annotations or memoranda appearing on the owner’s, co-owner’s, mortgagee’s
or lessee’s duplicate; (b) Registered documents on file in the registry of deeds, or authenticated copies thereof
showing that the originals thereof had been registered; and (c) Any other document which, in the judgment of the
court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the liens or encumbrances affecting the property covered by
the lost or destroyed certificate of title. (Italics supplied) Furthermore, Sections 8 and 11 of the same Act provide for
the procedure for the notation of an interest that did not appear in the reconstituted certificate of title, mandating
that a petition be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction.

Same; Same; Same; It is not the ministerial function of the Register of Deeds to record a right or an interest that was
not duly noted in the reconstituted certificate of title—the responsibility is lodged by law to the proper court.—
Clearly, therefore, it is not the ministerial function of the Register of Deeds to record a right or an interest that was
not duly noted in the reconstituted certificate of title. As a matter of fact, this task is not even within the ambit of
the Register of Deed’s job as the responsibility is lodged by law to the proper courts. The foregoing quoted
provisions of the law leave no question nor any doubt that it is indeed the duty of the trial court to determine the
merits of the petition and render judgment as justice and equity may require.

Same; Same; Same; The contentions that the Register of Deeds may “validly re-annotate the incumbrance/liens and
annotate the Supreme Court decisions on the administratively reconstituted transfer certificates of titles (TCTs)” have
no basis in law and jurisprudence.—The court’s intervention in the amendment of the registration book after the
entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon is categorically stated in the Property Registration Decree
and cannot be denied by the mere allegations of petitioner. Hence, the contentions that the Register of Deeds may
“validly re-annotate the incumbrance/liens and annotate the Supreme Court decision on the administratively
reconstituted transfer certificates of titles (TCTs)” have no basis in law and jurisprudence.

Carumba vs. Court of Appeals

Civil law Sale Double sale Article 1544 of Civil Code does not apply to unregistered land.—The rule in Article 1544 of
the Civil Code applies to lands covered by Torrens title, where the prior sale is neither recorded nor known to the
execution purchaser prior to the levy. But where the land in question is not registered under Act No. 496, the rule is
different. While under Article 1544 of Civil Code registration in good faith prevails over possession in the event of a
double sale by the vendor of the same piece of land to different vendees, said article is not applicable even if the
later vendee was ignorant of the prior sale made by his judgment debtor in favor of another vendee. The reason is
that 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, as
provided in Sec. 35 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court

Rural Bank of Sta. BARBARA [Pangasinan], Inc. vs. Manila Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints, Inc

Same; Attachment; Since such notice, which was deemed in Ruiz as constructive registration of the sale, was effected
only after the attachment of the subject property, it could not affect the validity of the attachment lien.—The
Motion, however, merely mentions the construction of the chapel and does not charge petitioner Rural Bank with
knowledge of the construction. There was, therefore, nothing to deny on the part of petitioner Rural Bank, as the
mere existence of such construction at that time would not affect the right of petitioner Rural Bank to its lien over
the subject property. Also, the mention in the Motion of the construction of the chapel would have the effect of
being a notice of an adverse third-party claim only at the time of such Motion. Since such notice, which was deemed
in Ruiz as constructive registration of the sale, was effected only after the attachment of the subject property, it
could not affect the validity of the attachment lien.

Same; Levy; Attachment; Sales; Our decision in Ruiz v. Court of Appeals, 362 SCRA 40 (2001) and Valdevieso v.
Damalerio, 451 SCRA 664 (2005), oblige us to rule that the duly registered levy on attachment by petitioner Rural
Bank takes preference over the prior but then unregistered sale of respondent Manila Mission.— In sum, our
decisions in Ruiz v. Court of Appeals, 362 SCRA 40 (2001), and Valdevieso v. Damalerio, 451 SCRA 664 (2005), oblige
us to rule that the duly registered levy on attachment by petitioner Rural Bank takes preference over the prior but
then unregistered sale of respondent Manila Mission. There was likewise no evidence of knowledge on the part of
petitioner Rural Bank of any third-party interest in the subject property at the time of the attachment. We are,
therefore, constrained to grant the instant Petition for Review and nullify the Orders of the RTC discharging the
subject property from attachment.