G.R. No. 47662; September 30, 1942
JOAQUIN V. BASS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA and HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Pedro Ferrer owned an undivided one-fourth interest in a parcel of registered land. On July 16, 1920, he mortgaged this interest to Hijos de I. de la Rama to secure a loan of P12,500. This mortgage was duly registered and annotated on the certificate of title. On December 18, 1923, the provincial sheriff, at the instance of plaintiff Joaquin V. Bass (a judgment creditor of Pedro Ferrer), levied execution on Ferrer’s one-fourth interest. The notice of this levy was entered in the register of deeds’ day book but was not annotated on the certificate of title. On February 15, 1924, the sheriff sold Ferrer’s interest at public auction to Bass. The certificate of sale was entered in the day book on April 9, 1924, but was also not annotated on the certificate of title. It does not appear from the record whether a final deed of sale was ever issued to Bass or whether Ferrer redeemed the property within the statutory period.
Subsequently, in a separate case (Civil Case No. 2911), Hijos de I. de la Rama foreclosed its mortgage on the entire land (including the interests of Ferrer and his co-owners). The property was sold at a sheriff’s auction on January 5, 1929, and adjudicated to Hijos de I. de la Rama. The register of deeds cancelled the old title and issued a new transfer certificate of title (No. 11411) in the name of Hijos de I. de la Rama on January 7, 1929. This title did not contain any annotation of Bass’s levy or certificate of sale.
In 1939, Bass filed the present action against Esteban de la Rama and Hijos de I. de la Rama, claiming absolute ownership of one-fourth of the land by virtue of the 1924 sheriff’s sale and seeking delivery of the land and damages for its produce. The defendants asserted that they acquired valid title through the foreclosure and that Bass’s claim, if any, had been lost.
The trial court dismissed Bass’s complaint, ruling that any right he acquired was subject to the prior mortgage and was lost when he failed to redeem that mortgage before its foreclosure. Bass appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff-appellant, Joaquin V. Bass, acquired a right or interest in the land that was superior to or survived the subsequent foreclosure and title acquisition by the defendant-appellee, Hijos de I. de la Rama.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
1. Nature of Bass’s Acquisition: Bass acquired, at most, only an “equity of redemption” or an inchoate right in Pedro Ferrer’s interest through the 1924 sheriff’s sale. This right was subject to: (a) Ferrer’s (or a redemptioner’s) right to redeem within one year, and (b) the prior registered mortgage in favor of Hijos de I. de la Rama. Bass failed to prove that the title had been consolidated in him, which would require showing that the redemption period had expired without redemption and that the prior mortgage had been satisfied. He did not establish either.
2. Effect of Non-annotation on Title: The Court held that the levy of execution and the certificate of sale, though entered in the register of deeds’ day book, were not binding on Hijos de I. de la Rama because they were not annotated on the certificate of title. Following the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496), the act of registration is the operative act to convey or affect registered land. Notation in the day book alone does not constitute registration for purposes of binding subsequent purchasers or encumbrancers. Therefore, when Hijos de I. de la Rama foreclosed its mortgage and obtained a new certificate of title, it acquired the land free from Bass’s unannotated claim.
3. Prescription of Action: The Court also found that Bass’s cause of action, if any, had prescribed. His right accrued from the 1924 sheriff’s sale or, at the latest, from the 1929 foreclosure sale and issuance of a new title to the defendants. His failure to assert his claim for over ten years (filing suit only in 1939) barred his action under the statute of limitations.
4. Motion for Reconsideration: The Court denied Bass’s motion for reconsideration. It ruled that a certified copy of an unregistered sheriff’s final deed of sale (dated 1925) would not affect the rights of the appellees. The Court also noted that Bass’s direct appeal allowed it to review questions of fact, including prescription.
Therefore, the plaintiff-appellant failed to establish a subsisting right or title to the land, and his action was correctly dismissed.