This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-08-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Considering that the sale was not registered earlier, the right of petitioner over the land became subordinate and subject to the preference created over the earlier annotated levy in favor of Swift. The levy of execution registered and annotated on September 1, 1998 takes precedence over the sale of the land to petitioner on February 16, 1997, despite the subsequent registration on September 14, 1998 of the prior sale. Such preference in favor of the levy on execution retroacts to the date of levy for to hold otherwise will render the preference nugatory and meaningless.[23] In Valdevieso v. Damalerio,[24] We held that: The settled rule is that levy on attachment, duly registered, takes preference over a prior unregistered sale. This result is a necessary consequence of the fact that the property involved was duly covered by the Torrens system which works under the fundamental principle that registration is the operative act which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land. | |||||
|
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. | |||||
|
2000-04-12 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| a levy on execution duly registered takes preference over a prior unregistered sale, and even if the prior sale is subsequently registered before the execution sale but after the levy was duly made, the validity of the execution sale should be maintained because it retroacts to the date of the levy; otherwise the preference created by the levy would be meaningless and illusory.[34] | |||||