This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-08-01 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Garnishment has been defined as a specie of attachment for reaching credits belonging to the judgment debtor and owing to him from a stranger to the litigation.[20] A writ of attachment is substantially a writ of execution except that it emanates at the beginning, instead of at the termination, of a suit. It places the attached properties in custodia legis, obtaining pendente lite a lien until the judgment of the proper tribunal on the plaintiff's claim is established, when the lien becomes effective as of the date of the levy.[21] | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In contrast, the levy on execution was not only recorded with the Register of Deeds, it was also annotated on the certificates of title as early as 1976. Settled in this jurisdiction is the doctrine that a prior registration of a lien creates a preference.[8] Even subsequent registration of the prior sale will not diminish this preference, which retroacts to the date of the levy.[9] As pointed out in Defensor v. Brillo, 98 Phil. 427 (1956), to hold otherwise would render the preference nugatory and meaningless. Lastly, the attachment or levy of property of a judgment debtor creates a lien, which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment or levy itself.[10] Inasmuch as the petitioner's deeds of pacto de retro sale over the subject parcels were unregistered, the rights of the petitioner over them became subordinate and subject to the duly recorded and annotated attachment and levy. | |||||