GR 132887; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132887 . August 11, 2005
THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. EDMUNDO S. SILVERIO and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
FACTS
Purificacion Ver sold two parcels of land to Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. in 1979, but the deed of sale was not registered, leaving the titles under Ver’s name. In 1990, The Manila Banking Corporation (TMBC) filed a collection case against Ricardo Sr. and obtained a writ of preliminary attachment, which was annotated on the subject titles. In 1993, Edmundo Silverio, Ricardo Sr.’s nephew, filed a petition for cancellation of the annotations, claiming he had purchased the properties from his uncle under a deed of sale executed in 1989, prior to the levy. The Regional Trial Court dismissed Edmundo’s petition, finding the deed of sale to be fictitious and simulated, and thus void. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ordering the cancellation of the annotations.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the cancellation of the notice of levy and writ of attachment based on its finding that the sale between Ricardo Silverio, Sr. and Edmundo Silverio was valid, thereby transferring ownership prior to the levy.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core issue was the ownership of the properties at the time of the levy. Only properties belonging to the debtor can be validly attached. The Court upheld the appellate court’s factual finding that the 1989 sale between Ricardo Sr. and Edmundo was a real and valid transaction, not a simulated one. This finding, being factual, is generally conclusive in a Rule 45 petition. The Court noted the presence of consideration (a promissory note for the purchase price) and the fact of possession transferred to Edmundo, who subsequently leased the properties. Since the valid sale occurred before the 1990 levy, the properties no longer belonged to the debtor, Ricardo Sr., at the time of attachment. Consequently, the levy was improper, and the cancellation of its annotation on the titles was correct. The Court also clarified that TMBC, as an attaching creditor, is a third person whose interests are directly affected by the contract of sale and may therefore invoke its simulation, but the evidence failed to prove simulation.