G.R. No. 133303 ; February 17, 2005
BERNARDO VALDEVIESO, petitioner, vs. CANDELARIO DAMALERIO AND AUREA C. DAMALERIO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Bernardo Valdevieso purchased a parcel of land from spouses Lorenzo and Elenita Uy on December 5, 1995. The deed of sale, however, was not registered with the Register of Deeds. Subsequently, on April 19, 1996, respondents Candelario and Aurea Damalerio filed a money claim against the Uy spouses and obtained a writ of preliminary attachment. This writ was levied on the subject property on April 23, 1996, and the levy was annotated on the title, which was still in Lorenzo Uy’s name. It was only on June 6, 1996, that the title was cancelled and a new one issued in Valdevieso’s name, carrying the annotation of the attachment.
Valdevieso filed a third-party claim to annul the attachment, arguing he was already the owner of the property when the levy was made. The trial court ruled in his favor, holding that the attachment was unlawful since the Uys were no longer the owners. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the registered writ of attachment, being recorded ahead of the registration of the sale, took precedence over the earlier unregistered deed of sale.

ISSUE

Whether a registered writ of attachment on a property enjoys priority over an earlier but unregistered deed of sale covering the same property.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the registered writ of attachment enjoys priority. The governing law is Section 51 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), which states that no voluntary instrument, such as a deed of sale, shall bind or convey registered land until it is registered. Registration is the operative act that gives the instrument effect as to third persons.
While the contract of sale between Valdevieso and the Uys may have transferred ownership between them under Articles 1477 and 1498 of the Civil Code upon execution of the public instrument, this effect is only inter partes. As to third parties like the respondents, the unregistered sale did not bind the land. Consequently, when the writ of attachment was registered on April 23, 1996, the property was still registered under the name of Lorenzo Uy, the judgment debtor. The subsequent registration of Valdevieso’s deed of sale on June 6, 1996, could not defeat the prior registered lien created by the attachment.
The Court rejected Valdevieso’s invocation of equity, emphasizing that in the presence of a clear statutory provision, equity cannot be applied to supplant the law. The rule of registration must prevail.