GR 43933; (September, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 43933 ; September 22, 1938
CHENG SIONG LAM & CO., applicant-appellant, vs. TEODORO R. YANGCO, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
The case involves a dispute over the priority of liens on a registered parcel of land, Lot No. 1322, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 18017 issued in the names of spouses Pedro Goco and Rosa Borja. Appellant Cheng Siong Lam & Co. obtained a writ of preliminary attachment against the spouses in a Manila civil case. The sheriff levied the attachment on the lot on August 23, 1932, and it was registered in the Registry of Deeds under Act No. 3344 (governing unregistered land). The appellant later purchased the lot at a sheriff’s auction on March 20, 1933, pursuant to a writ of execution in its case, and a final certificate of sale was issued on April 13, 1934. However, the writ of attachment and the sale were not annotated on the Torrens title. Meanwhile, appellee Teodoro R. Yangco obtained a writ of execution in a separate case against the same spouses. This writ was levied on October 6, 1932, and the lot was sold at auction to Yangco on December 2, 1932. The writ of execution and the sale were duly annotated on the back of OCT No. 18017. Both parties filed motions to have the title cancelled and new ones issued in their favor.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of preliminary attachment, registered only under the system for unregistered land ( Act No. 3344 ) but not annotated on the Torrens certificate of title, enjoys preference over a writ of execution of judgment that was duly annotated on the same certificate of title.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment denying the appellant’s motion. The Court held that for an attachment to affect registered land under the Torrens system, it must be filed and registered in the office of the Register of Deeds and annotated on the certificate of title, as required by Sections 71 and 51 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act). Since the appellant’s attachment was not noted on the title, it produced no legal effect on the registered lot. In contrast, the appellee’s writ of execution and the sale were properly noted on the title, constituting notice to the whole world and creating a preferred right in his favor. Therefore, the annotated execution lien prevails over the unannotated attachment lien.
AI Generated by Armztrong.