This is a petition for certiorari seeking  the annulment of an order of respondent  judge dated July 10,  1957 directing petitioners to surrender to the Register of Deeds of Rizal their owner's duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 51585 in order that the  attorney's lien of their former counsel Flaviano T. Dalisay, Jr. may be annotated on the back  thereof.

Petitioners are the  widow  and children of the late Valeriano Caina who was the owner of a parcel of land covered  by Transfer  Certificate of  Title No.  21702. A portion of this property was transferred to one  Gavina Cierte de Andal and as a result said title  was cancelled and  a new one issued in their names bearing  No. 51585. Respondent Flaviano  T. Dalisay, Jr. was the attorney of one of petitioners, Elena  Peralta Vda. de Caina,  in an action for ejectment filed before the Justice of the Peace of Caloocan, Rizal, against  one Ricardo Nabong,  which was  dismissed and appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal.   In the latter court, the  case was docketed as Civil Case No. 3875, and  because  of the non-appearance of defendant, the latter was  declared in default and  judgment was rendered in favor  of plaintiff.  This judgment became final and executory for lack of  appeal.

On June 26,  1957,  respondent Dalisay filed a  motion in the same ejectment case for annotation of his attorney's lien  on the back of Transfer  Certificate of Title No. 51585 claiming  that,  notwithstanding the services he had rendered to the widow and her children who were represented by him  in said  case, they  have failed to  pay him  his attorney's fees which he  fixed  at  P2,020.  This  motion was  set for hearing and thereafter the same was granted in an order  entered on  July 10, 1957 wherein the  court ordered petitioners to surrender their duplicate copy of said  certificate  in order that the  annotation requested may be  made.  Upon receipt of a  copy of  this order, petitioners filed a motion for  reconsideration alleging that they were never furnished with a copy of respondent's motion, nor notified of the date of its hearing, for which reason they were not able to appear to contest the same.

This  motion was opposed by respondent  Dalisay who averred that petitioners were  furnished with a copy of his motion by registered mail three days before the hearing as shown by the return card attached to  his written opposition.  And  on August 27,  1957, the court denied the motion.  Hence the present petition for certiorari.

This  issue, to be determined is whether the attorney's lien of respondent Dalisay for services he had rendered in the ejectment case can  be ordered  annotated on  the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 51585. An attorney's lien is of two  kinds: one is called  retaining alien and the other charging lien.  The retaining lien is the right  of the attorney to retain the funds, documents, and papers  of  his client which have lawfully come into his possession  until his  lawful  fees and  disbursements have been paid and to  apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof.  The charging lien is  the right which the attorney has upon all judgments for the payment of  money, and executions issued in  pursuance of said judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of his client (Section 33, Rule 127;  Rustia  vs.  Abeto,  72 Phil., 133).  Under this rule,  this  lien, whether retaining or charging, takes legal  effect  only from  and after, but  not before, notice of said lien has been entered in the record and  served on  the  adverse party (Macondray & Company, Inc. vs. Jose,  66 Phil.,  590;  Menzi  and Company  vs. Bastida, 63 Phil., 16).

It may therefore  be seen that the right of a  lawyer to insure the payment of his professional fee is  either to retain the  funds, documents,  and  papers of his client which may  have lawfully come into  his possession, or to enforce it upon any judgment  for the payment of money he may secure in favor of his client.   And  it has  been held that the retaining lien is  dependent upon possession and does not attach to  anything not in attorney's hand3. The lien exists only so long as the attorney  retains possession ends (Rustia vs.  Abeto, supra).

In the instant case, the lien which respondent attorney tried to  enforce  for the satisfaction of his professional fee  is charging in the sense that his purpose is to make of record his claim in order that it may be considered in the  execution  of  the judgment that may be rendered in the  case, and this he has already done.  Thus,  he had already  caused a  statement of his claim to  be entered in the  record of the ejectment case and that is all what the rule requires of him to do.  Certainly,  he cannot go any further, such as  what he led  the trial  court to do, that is, to have his lien annotated on the back of the title of petitioners  which  is  beyond the province of  the court. The lien of respondent is not of a nature which attaches to the  property in  litigation but is at most a personal claim enforceable by a writ of  execution.   The respondent  judge has  therefore  exceeded his authority in issuing the order subject  of the present petition for certiorari.

Petition is granted.  The order of  respondent judge dated July  10, 1957  is hereby set aside.  Costs  against respondent Flaviano T. Dalisay, Jr.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla,  Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.