Valdevieso v. Damalerio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Bernardo Valdevieso purchased a 10,000 square meter parcel of land in General Santos City from spouses Lorenzo and Elenita Uy on December 5, 1995. The deed of sale was not registered, nor was the title transferred to Valdevieso at that time. Subsequently, on April 19, 1996, spouses Candelario and Aurea Damalerio filed a complaint for a sum of money against the Uys, seeking a writ of preliminary attachment. This writ was issued on April 23, 1996, and the property, still registered under Lorenzo Uy's name but already sold to Valdevieso, was levied and the attachment annotated on the title. Procedural History: Following the levy on attachment, Valdevieso filed a third-party claim on August 14, 1996, seeking to annul the attachment on the grounds that he was the rightful owner. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of Valdevieso on October 21, 1996, citing that the property no longer belonged to the defendants. The RTC denied the Damalerios' motion for reconsideration on January 3, 1997. The Damalerios then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC's decision on September 25, 1997, holding that a registered writ of attachment, even if posterior to an unregistered sale, takes precedence. The Court of Appeals denied Valdevieso's motion for reconsideration on February 10, 1998. The Petition: Valdevieso filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals' decision. He argues that his ownership, established by the deed of sale on December 5, 1995, predates the attachment and levy, and that the transfer of ownership occurred upon delivery, as per the Civil Code. He contends that his slight delay in registration was due to procedural requirements and not his fault, and invokes equity. The Damalerios maintain that registration is the operative act that binds the land to third parties, and since their attachment was registered before Valdevieso's sale, their lien takes precedence. They argue that the Civil Code provisions cited by Valdevieso apply only between the parties and not to third parties, and that equity cannot override a clear provision of law.
Issue(s)
Whether a registered writ of attachment on a land is a superior lien over an earlier unregistered deed of sale. Whether equity can prevail over a positive provision of law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that a registered writ of attachment takes precedence over a prior unregistered sale. The Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA's ruling.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a registered writ of attachment on a land is a superior lien over an earlier unregistered deed of sale: The Court ruled in favor of the respondents, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court emphasized that under Section 51 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), the act of registration is the operative act that conveys or affects the land insofar as third persons are concerned. Although the petitioner bought the property on December 5, 1995, the sale was not registered until June 6, 1996. During the interregnum, specifically on April 23, 1996, the property was levied upon by virtue of a writ of preliminary attachment in favor of the respondents, and this levy was annotated on the title. At the time of the attachment, spouses Uy were still the registered owners. The Court reiterated the settled rule that a levy on attachment, duly registered, takes precedence over a prior unregistered sale. This is a consequence of the Torrens system, where registration is the operative act. The attachment proceeding is in rem, creating a specific lien on the property that cannot be destroyed by subsequent events, except for the dissolution of the attachment itself. Therefore, the petitioner's registered title was subject to the prior registered lien of the respondents. On the issue of whether equity can prevail over a positive provision of law: The Court denied the petitioner's invocation of equity. It stated that while the Court has equity jurisdiction, it cannot be exercised to override positive provisions of law. The principle of dura lex sed lex (the law is harsh but it is the law) applies. In this case, PD 1529 clearly provides that registration is the operative act for conveying or affecting land concerning third persons. The petitioner's reliance on equity was misplaced because there was a clear legal provision governing the situation, and the petitioner's failure to register his sale promptly meant he could not invoke equity to defeat the respondents' legally established lien. The Court found the petitioner's cited cases, Manliguez v. Court of Appeals and Santos v. Bayhon, to be inapplicable as they did not involve the issue of registered attachment versus unregistered sale.
Main Doctrine
A registered writ of attachment on a land, even if posterior to an earlier unregistered deed of sale, takes precedence over the unregistered sale, as registration is the operative act that conveys or affects the land concerning third persons.