G.R. No. 111547. January 27, 1997.
SPS. TRINIDAD S. ESTONINA and PAULINO ESTONINA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. CELSO ATAYAN and NILDA HICBAN, CONSUELO VDA. DE GARCIA, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a parcel of land originally covered by TCT No. T-19175 in the name of Santiago Garcia. After his death, his widow, Consuelo Garcia, was sued by Trinidad Estonina. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued and annotated on the title. Subsequently, the title was cancelled and reissued (TCT No. T-82229) in the name of Ofelia Garcia, a niece, based on a sale allegedly executed by Santiago before his death. The heirs of Santiago Garcia, from his first and second marriages, later sold their pro indiviso shares in the property to the spouses Celso Atayan and Nilda Hicban.
Meanwhile, Estonina won her case against Consuelo Garcia. The property was levied upon and sold at public auction to Estonina as the highest bidder. The Court of Appeals later declared TCT No. T-82229 null and void, leading to the cancellation of that title and the issuance of a new one (TCT No. T-99961) in Estonina’s name. The spouses Atayan then filed a complaint for annulment of the sheriff’s sale and TCT No. T-99961, claiming ownership over a 9/10 pro indiviso share acquired from the Garcia heirs.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the spouses Atayan, as alleged purchasers of shares from the heirs, have a superior right over the property that was levied upon and sold to satisfy the personal debt of only one heir, Consuelo Garcia.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision in favor of the spouses Atayan. The legal logic rests on the nature of the property and the extent of the writ of attachment. The property was conjugal, acquired during the marriage of Santiago and Consuelo Garcia. Upon Santiago’s death, his one-half conjugal share passed to his heirs by intestate succession. Consuelo Garcia’s interest was limited to her one-half conjugal share and her hereditary share in Santiago’s estate. The writ of attachment in Estonina’s case covered only the rights, title, and interest of the defendant, Consuelo Garcia. Therefore, the levy on execution and subsequent sheriff’s sale could only affect Consuelo Garcia’s aliquot interest in the property, not the shares already validly transmitted to the other heirs. The sales by the other heirs to the spouses Atayan conveyed rights that were beyond the reach of the attachment and execution issued against Consuelo alone. Consequently, the sheriff’s sale of the entire property was void with respect to the shares not belonging to the judgment debtor. The spouses Atayan, as strangers to the prior case, properly vindicated their claim through a separate action and were not guilty of laches, as they filed suit promptly after a new title was issued in Estonina’s name.