This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-02-26 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| any proper party.[38] Case law instructs that an attachment is a proceeding in rem, and, hence, is against the particular property, enforceable against the whole world. Accordingly, the attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the property attached is an indebted thing and a virtual condemnation of it to pay the owner's debt. The lien continues until the debt is paid, or sale is had under execution issued on the judgment, or until the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in some manner provided by law.[39] Thus, a prior registration[40] of an attachment lien creates a preference,[41] such that when an attachment has been duly levied upon a property, a purchaser thereof subsequent to the attachment takes the property subject to the said attachment.[42] As provided under PD 1529, said registration operates as a form of constructive notice to all persons.[43] Applying these principles to this case, the Court finds that the CA erred in holding that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the Assailed Orders as these issuances essentially disregarded, inter alia, Ligon's prior attachment lien over the | |||||
|
2009-09-30 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Bernadas' execution on March 10, 1976 of the deed of absolute sale of real property in favor of the Dadizons, standing alone, did not suffice to bind and conclude the Mocorros. Pursuant to Sec. 113, Presidential Decree No. 1529, the recording of the sale was necessary.[29] Besides, the deed, being the unilateral act of Bernadas, did not adversely affect the Mocorros, who were not her privies. Otherwise stated, the deed was res inter alios acta as far as they were concerned.[30] | |||||
|
2009-08-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Sometime in 1992, Eufemia, Ferdinand and Raul executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of Undivided Shares[5] conveying in favor of petitioners (the Pahuds, for brevity) their respective shares from the lot they inherited from their deceased parents for P525,000.00.[6] Eufemia also signed the deed on behalf of her four (4) other co-heirs, namely: Isabelita on the basis of a special power of attorney executed on September 28, 1991,[7] and also for Milagros, Minerva, and Zenaida but without their apparent written authority.[8] The deed of sale was also not notarized.[9] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The doctrine is well settled that a levy on execution duly registered takes preference over a prior unregistered sale.[26] A registered lien is entitled to preferential consideration.[27] In Valdevieso v. Damalerio,[28] the Court held that a registered writ of attachment was a superior lien over that on an unregistered deed of sale and explained the reason therefor:This is so because an attachment is a proceeding in rem. It is against the particular property, enforceable against the whole world. The attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the property attached is an indebted thing and a virtual condemnation of it to pay the owner's debt. The lien continues until the debt is paid, or sale is had under execution issued on the judgment, or until the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in some manner provided by law. | |||||