GR L 76737; (October, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-76737 October 27, 1988
SPOUSES PANFILO AND PERLITA OLIVA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES SALVADOR AND PATRIA ANG, respondents.
FACTS
The case involves conflicting claims over a house and lot owned by Spouses Arturo and Elsa Co. Two separate creditors, the Spouses Ang and the Spouses Oliva, obtained writs of preliminary attachment against the same property in their respective civil cases. The Angs’ levy was first annotated on the title at 9:45 A.M. on July 18, 1983. The Olivas’ levy was annotated later the same day at 3:00 P.M. The Olivas obtained a judgment by compromise in their case first, enforced the judgment, and purchased the property at an execution sale in October 1984. After the redemption period expired, a final deed of sale was issued to them. Subsequently, the Angs also obtained a judgment by compromise in their case in March 1985. When the Angs moved for execution against the same property, the Olivas filed an urgent motion for intervention and opposition, claiming ownership and arguing the Angs’ compromise agreement was void as to them.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied the Olivas’ motion for intervention and upheld the Angs’ right to execute on their judgment, considering the Olivas’ prior execution sale.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and sustained the Court of Appeals. The ruling is grounded on two key legal principles. First, on procedural grounds, intervention under the Rules of Court is allowed only before or during trial, not after a final and executory judgment. The Olivas sought to intervene long after the Angs’ case had been decided and their judgment had become final. The exception allowing late intervention for indispensable parties to protect the Torrens system, as in Director of Lands v. CA, does not apply here, as no such overriding consideration exists.
Second, and more substantively, the Angs’ prior attachment lien prevails. The priority of liens in attachment is determined by the order of their registration. The Angs’ earlier annotation at 9:45 A.M. created a superior lien over the Olivas’ 3:00 P.M. annotation. Consequently, the execution sale to the Olivas transferred only the judgment debtors’ rights in the property, which remained subject to the Angs’ prior and superior lien. The Olivas did not acquire title free of this encumbrance. Furthermore, an execution sale retroacts to the date of the levy on which it is based. Therefore, any execution sale to satisfy the Angs’ judgment would retroact to their earlier levy date, reinforcing their priority. The Angs, as prevailing parties with a superior lien, are entitled to a writ of execution as a matter of right to satisfy their judgment claim against the property.