GR L 21556; (October, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21556 October 31, 1967
PHILIPPINE SURETY and INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. BEATRIZ ZABAL, respondent.
FACTS
Pursuant to a writ of execution to enforce a money judgment against Candido Fajardo, the Sheriff of Manila levied on Fajardo’s interest in a parcel of land registered in his name under TCT No. 21180 on June 17, 1960. Notice of the levy was registered and annotated on the title. Subsequently, on August 28, 1961, Beatriz Zabal presented for registration a deed of sale dated August 28, 1959, whereby Fajardo had conveyed the same parcel to her. The Register of Deeds cancelled Fajardo’s title and issued a new one (TCT No. 64730) in Zabal’s name, but carried over the annotation of the levy. Zabal filed an action praying for the cancellation of the annotation, arguing she was the owner at the time of the levy and that the levy was irregular. The trial court dismissed her complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding that Zabal had been in occupancy of the property prior to and on the date of the levy, yet was not served a copy of the notice of levy as required by the Rules of Court, rendering the levy invalid.
ISSUE
Whether notice to the occupant of a real property is a prerequisite to a valid levy of execution upon that property.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Under Section 7(a) of Rule 59 (now Rule 57), to effect a valid levy on real property, the sheriff must: (1) file with the register of deeds a copy of the order, a description of the attached property, and a notice of attachment; and (2) leave a copy of the same with the occupant of the property, if any. These are mandatory prerequisites. The Court of Appeals’ factual finding that Zabal, the occupant, was not served notice was binding. Consequently, the levy was invalid for non-compliance with the statutory requirement. The registration and annotation of the invalid levy were likewise ineffective. Since there was no valid levy, the question of priority of rights between the parties did not arise. The petition was dismissed.