GR 130223; (August, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 130223 ; August 19, 2009
RURAL BANK OF STA. BARBARA (PANGASINAN), INC., Petitioner, vs. THE MANILA MISSION OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Spouses Tomas and Maria Soliven were the registered owners of a parcel of land. They sold the property to respondent Manila Mission on May 18, 1992, but the transfer certificate of title (TCT) was only issued in the respondent’s name on April 28, 1994. In the interim, petitioner Rural Bank filed a money claim against the spouses Soliven and secured a writ of preliminary attachment. The writ was enforced on May 24, 1993, and annotated on the TCT still in the spouses’ names. This annotation was carried over to the new TCT issued to the respondent in 1994.
While the main case was pending, respondent filed a Motion to Release Property from Attachment in the same case, asserting its ownership. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion and ordered the property discharged from attachment. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing the respondent availed of the wrong remedy and that the petitioner, as attaching creditor, had a superior right. The RTC denied the motion, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s orders, which directed the release of the subject property from attachment based on respondent’s motion.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decisions. The Court held that the respondent’s filing of a Motion to Release Property from Attachment in the main case was a proper remedy. While petitioner correctly cited Section 14, Rule 57 (claim by a third-party claimant to the sheriff), this provision is not the exclusive remedy available to a third person claiming ownership over attached property. The Rules of Court allow for flexibility, and a claimant may also seek relief by filing a motion in the same action, especially when the court already has custody of the res.
The Court emphasized that a third person with a legal interest in attached property may intervene in the action under Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. The respondent’s motion, which sought the discharge of the attachment based on its alleged ownership acquired prior to the levy, was treated as a permissible mode of intervention to assert its right. The RTC acted within its jurisdiction in hearing and granting the motion. Having resolved that the procedural recourse was proper, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to delve into the substantive issue of whether the petitioner’s attachment lien prevailed over the respondent’s unregistered sale. The orders of the RTC were upheld for being issued without grave abuse of discretion.