Boncan v. Smith, Bell & Co.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Smith, Bell & Co. obtained a judgment against Emiliano Boncan in Case No. 4391. Subsequently, an order of execution was issued, and the real property in question was attached. Procedural History: Juliana Boncan commenced an action praying to be declared owner of the attached land, seeking to dissolve the attachment. The lower court denied her petition, refused to dissolve the attachment, and dismissed the case. Juliana Boncan appealed. The Petition: The plaintiff, Juliana Boncan, sought to be declared the owner of the land, to have the attachment dissolved, and to recover costs.
Issue(s)
Whether an unregistered deed of sale is admissible in evidence to show a transfer of title as against an attaching creditor. Whether the attachment levied upon the property was valid.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court is reversed. The attachment levied upon the property is dissolved.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the unregistered deed: The Court held that an unregistered deed is admissible in evidence to show a transfer of title as against an attaching creditor. The Court cited the case of Fabian, et al. vs. Smith, Bell & Co., which established that an attaching creditor is not considered a "third person" under Article 389 of the Mortgage Law. Therefore, the levy of an execution against a judgment debtor upon real estate does not take precedence over an unrecorded deed to the same property made by the judgment debtor prior to the levy. The deed in question was thus admissible to prove the transfer of title from Emiliano Boncan to Juliana Boncan. On the validity of the attachment: The evidence showed that Francisca Yap de Boncan died on July 22, 1905, leaving heirs including Juliana Boncan and Emiliano Boncan. Emiliano Boncan, as an heir entitled to a distributive share, owned a one-sixth part of the property. On August 20, 1905, Emiliano Boncan sold and transferred all his rights, title, and interest in the land to Juliana Boncan via a public document for P2,500. The defendants did not allege or attempt to prove that this sale was invalid. The deed of transfer was regular in form and complied with the requirements of Act No. 496. Since the land was transferred to Juliana Boncan several months prior to the attachment, the attachment was levied upon the property of Juliana Boncan, not Emiliano Boncan, rendering it illegally levied. The Court further noted that the deed complied with Section 127 of Act No. 496 regarding the signing of deeds.
Main Doctrine
An unregistered deed of sale is admissible in evidence to show a transfer of title as against an attaching creditor, and a levy of execution against a judgment debtor upon real estate does not take precedence over an unrecorded deed to the same property made by the judgment debtor prior to the levy.