G.R. No. 26551 , March 18, 1927
MARIA DE OCAMPO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE INSULAR TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, BUENAVENTURA DIZON and CELERINO ARELLANO, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Maria de Ocampo obtained a judgment against Celerino Arellano. Before she could levy execution on Arellano’s property, he sold it to Buenaventura Dizon. Subsequently, Ocampo’s writ of execution was levied on the property, and the sheriff filed a notice of levy with the Register of Deeds. The notice, however, did not contain the required certificate of title number. The Register of Deeds entered it in the primary entry book but later returned it to the sheriff, informing him that the property was already registered in Dizon’s name. No memorandum of the levy was entered on the outstanding certificate of title. Later, the sale to Dizon was judicially declared fraudulent and void. However, before this declaration, Dizon had already sold the property to Remedios de Locsin, a purchaser in good faith. Ocampo then sued to recover damages from the Land Registration Assurance Fund, alleging negligence by the Register of Deeds in failing to annotate the levy on the title.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff, Maria de Ocampo, is entitled to recover damages from the Assurance Fund under Section 101 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act) due to the alleged negligence of the Register of Deeds.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. Recovery from the Assurance Fund under Section 101 of Act No. 496 requires that the claimant sustain loss “without negligence on his part.” The Court found that Ocampo was guilty of negligence. She delayed levying execution for five months after judgment, took no action when the Register of Deeds returned the notice, and failed to promptly sue to annul the fraudulent sale to Dizon before he sold the property to Locsin. By exercising ordinary diligence, she could have prevented the loss. Furthermore, the Court found no negligence on the part of the Register of Deeds. His act of returning the incomplete notice and informing the sheriff of the current registered owner was a prudent measure to avoid clouding the title of an innocent third party. Since the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the loss, she is not entitled to compensation from the Assurance Fund.