GR L 47551; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47551; April 25, 1941
VICENTE LOPEZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. ROMUALDO F. VIJANDRE, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Ricardo S. Nilo executed a mortgage on a parcel of land in favor of petitioner Vicente Lopez on December 11, 1930, to secure a loan of P9,000. Later, for an additional loan of P1,140, a second mortgage was executed on two parcels of land. Respondent Romualdo F. Vijandre, another creditor of Nilo, filed two civil actions for money claims and obtained a preliminary writ of attachment, which was registered on November 11, 1932, on all of Nilo’s properties. Judgments were rendered against Nilo, writs of execution were issued, and the two mortgaged parcels were levied upon on April 4, 1933. Before the scheduled auction sale, Lopez filed a third-party claim. Nevertheless, the properties were sold at public auction on August 3, 1933, with Vijandre as the highest bidder; the certificate of sale was registered on August 9, 1933. Subsequently, on May 22, 1934, Nilo executed a deed of absolute sale of the same two parcels in favor of Lopez in full discharge of the mortgage credit. Vijandre then sued Lopez. The trial court ruled in favor of Lopez, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision.
ISSUE
Who has a better right to the property — Romualdo F. Vijandre, the purchaser at the public auction sale, or Vicente Lopez, the purchaser at the private sale?
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, ruling that Romualdo F. Vijandre has a better right. The preliminary attachment lien, recorded on November 11, 1932, preceded the private sale to Lopez executed on May 29, 1933. Therefore, the attachment lien had priority over the private sale, meaning Lopez took the property subject to that lien and its consequences, including the subsequent execution sale. The auction sale, as an execution of the attachment lien, enjoys the same preference over the private sale. However, the Court noted that the valid mortgages in favor of Lopez existed prior to both the attachment and the execution sale. Consequently, the execution sale in favor of Vijandre is subject to the rights of Lopez as a mortgage creditor, including the right to foreclose the mortgage. Costs were awarded against the petitioners.