GR 102648; (November, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102648 November 24, 1999
DRS. ALENDRY P. CAVILES, JR. and FLORA P. CAVILES, petitioners, vs. EVELYN T. BAUTISTA and RAMON T. BAUTISTA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the Caviles spouses, filed a money claim against Renato Plata and obtained a writ of preliminary attachment. On October 4, 1982, the sheriff levied on a property owned by Plata. The Notice of Attachment was entered in the Register of Deeds’ Primary Entry Book (Day Book) on October 6, 1982, but it was never annotated on Plata’s Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. S-33634. Subsequently, on October 18, 1982, Plata sold the same property to respondents, the Bautista spouses, who were issued a new TCT. The Caviles spouses later obtained a favorable judgment, levied on the property again in 1984, and purchased it at an execution sale in 1987. They then sought to annotate the certificate of sale on the Bautistas’ title and to compel the surrender of the owner’s duplicate certificate.
The Regional Trial Court ordered the respondents to surrender their title for annotation and cancellation, leading to the issuance of a new title in favor of the petitioners. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, dismissing the petition and upholding the Bautista spouses’ title. The appellate court ruled that the unannotated attachment did not bind the property as against the respondents, who were innocent purchasers for value, and that registration in the Day Book alone was insufficient to affect the title.
ISSUE
Whether the preliminary attachment, which was entered only in the Day Book but not annotated on the certificate of title, is superior to the rights of subsequent purchasers who acquired the property and were issued a new title.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the entry of the notice of attachment in the Primary Entry Book on October 6, 1982, constituted effective registration under the Torrens system. Citing Section 56 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Court ruled that the act of registration is deemed complete upon entry in the Day Book, and such entry produces the effect of registration, including constructive notice to all persons. Therefore, the attachment was registered prior to the sale to the respondents on October 18, 1982.
The legal logic is anchored on the principle that entry in the Day Book is the operative act that binds the land. The respondents cannot claim superior rights as innocent purchasers because the prior registration of the attachment in the Day Book served as constructive notice. The Court emphasized that the rule requiring annotation on the certificate of title itself is for the protection of the registered owner and subsequent purchasers, but the efficacy of the registration is not negated by the absence of such annotation if the entry in the Day Book was duly made. Consequently, the petitioners’ right arising from the prior attachment prevails over the respondents’ subsequent purchase, entitling the petitioners to the relief sought for the annotation of the certificate of sale and the issuance of a new title.