Pedro Defensor  and Bienvenida  Gayho  were the registered owners of lots  Nos. 4715  and 4724  of  the Cadastral Survey of January, Iloilo, with Certificates of Title Nos. 29521 and 29522, respectively.  On March  5,  1948, Defensor and  Gayno executed  a  deed  of sale over lot No. 4715  in favor  of  Bibiana  Defensor   (Exhibit  A),  and another over  Lot No.  4724  in  favor of  Buenaventura Defensor (Exhibits).

About, three weeks after the  execution  of  Exhibits  A and B, Vicente Brillo obtained judgment in Civil Case No. 1182  of the Court  of  First  Instance of  Iloilo  against Defensor and Gayno for the sum of P1,000.  Writ of execution was  issued on  August 3, 1949  and by virtue thereof, Lots Nos.  4715 and 4724 were levied upon by the provincial sheriff,  which  levy was duly recorded . in the Registry of Property and annotated in the owner's duplicate certificates of title.   On August 22,  1949  Bibiana Defensor and  Buenaventura Defensor (the vendees under Exhibits A and B)  filed with the sheriff a  third party claim over  the two lots in question; wherefore, judgment creditor Vicente Brillo  filed a bond  of Pl,000 in favor of the sheriff,  who went ahead, with the  execution, sold the lots at  public auction to  Brillo  as the highest bidder on December 13, 1949, and the owners having failed to redeem the lots within one year, executed  in favor of Brillo  on  February  9,  1951,  a  final  deed  of sale, as a result of which Transfer Certificates of Title No's. T-9500 and T-9501 were  issued in the  latter's favor. Before the sale of Lots Nos. 4715 and 4724 in satisfaction of the judgment in  Civil Case  No. 1182, however, third party claimants Bibiana Defensor and Buenaventura Defensor  commenced on  November 3,  1949 the  present action  in the  Court of  First  Instance  of Iloilo to be declared owners of the lots in  question and to have the levy on said lots in Civil Case  No. 1182 annulled.   Two days thereafter, or on  November 5,  1949, claimants Bibiana and Buenaventura Defensor filed  a notice of lis pendens in the Office of the Register of Deeds,  and on the same day had their deeds of sale Exhibits A and B recorded in the books of the Register, but  without the corresponding entries in the owners' duplicate, certificates of title.

No trial was had in the Court below because the parties submitted the  case for decision on an agreed statement of facts  (Rec. on  App., pp. 18-23); and on the  basis thereof, the Court rendered judgment, finding  the levy in execution on the lots in question in Civil Case No.  1182 to be superior to the notice of  lis pendens in this  case; that the  deeds of  sale  Exhibits A and B in favor of claimants Bibiana and Buenaventura Defensor were  fictitious  and made  only  to avoid  the enforcement of  the judgment in Civil Case No. 1182; and dismissed the action. From this judgment, plaintiffs  appealed to the Court of Appeals, which forwarded the appeal to us on  the ground that it raises  any question  of law.

The  judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

First: The doctrine is well-settled that a levy on execution  duly registered takes  preference over a prior unregistered sale  (Gomez vs. Levy  Hermanoa, 67 Phil., 134); and that even if the prior sale is subsequently registered, before the' sale in execution but after the levy was  duly made, the validity of the execution sale should be maintained, because it retro acts  to the date  of the  levy (Vargas vs. Tansioco, 67 Phil., 308; Chin Liu & Co. vs. Mercado, 67 Phil., 409; Philippine Executive Commission vs. Abadilla, 74 Phil., 68); otherwise, the preference created  by the levy would be meaningless  and illusory (Philippine Executive Commission vs. Abadilla, supra).

Even assuming, therefore, that the entry of appellants' sales in the books of the Register of Deeds on November 5, 1949 operated to convey the.lands to  them even without the corresponding entry in the owner's duplicate titles, the levy on execution  on the same lots in  Civil Case No. 1182 on  August 3, 1949,  and  their  subsequent sale to appellee Brillo  (which  retroacts to the date of the levy) still takes precedence  over and  must be  preferred to appellants'  deeds  of sale which  were  registered only  on November 5, 1949.   (Landig vs. U. S. Comm. Co., 89 Phil., 6S8; Del  Rosario vs. Santos,  66  Phil.,  254; Gomez vs. Levy Hermanos Inc.,  67 Phil., 134; Worcester vs.  Ocampo,  34  Phil., 646).

This result is a necessary consequence of the  fact that the properties herein involved were duly registered under Act No. 496, and of the fundamental principle that registration  is the operative  act that  conveys  and  binds  lands covered  by  Torrens  titles  (sections  50,  51, Act  496). Hence, if appellants became owners of the properties in question by virtue of the  recording of the  conveyances in their favor,  their title arose already  subject to the levy in favor  of the appellee, which had been  noted ahead in the  records of the Register of Deeds.

Thus, in Gomez vs. Levy  Hermanos, Inc., 67  Phil., 134, this Court explained (pp.  137-138):

"The undisputed  facts of this case disclose that when  Levy Hermanos, Inc. attached the parcels of land in question and when said attachment was noted on the back of the certificates of title, there was nothing to show in the,registry that Apolonia Gomez had any right over the land.  It  is true  that  she bought  the  lots with pacto de retro but the fact of her purchase was not noted  on the certificates of  title until long  after the attachment and its inscription on the  certificates. In the  registry,. therefore, the attachment appeared in the nature of a real lien when Apolonia Gomez had her purchase recorded. The  legal effect of the notation of said lien was to  subject and subordinate the right of  Apolonia Gomez, as purchaser,  to  the  lien.  She  acquired the  ownership  of the said parcels  only  from the date of  the  recording  of her in the register, which took  place on November 21,  1932  (section 51 of Tabigue vs.  Green, 11  Phil., 102; Buzon  vs. Licuaco, 13 Phil., 854; Act No. 496; Liong-Wong-Shih vs. Sunico and Peterson, 8 Phil., 91; and Worcester vs. Ocampd  and Ocampo, 34 Phil., 646), and the right of ownership which she inscribed was not an absolute but a limited right, subject to a prior registered lien, by virtue of which Levy Hermanos,  Inc. was entitled to the  execution  of  the judgment credit  over  the lands in question, a right which is preferred and superior to  that  of the  plaintiff  (section  51, Act  No.  496 and decisions cited above). If she wanted to have an absolute title, free of all lien, she had to pay the judgment  credit of Levy Hermanos, Inc.,  or exercise, after the auction, the right of repurchase within one .year  granted by law, in order to redeem the property purchased by Levy Hermanos, Inc."

The present  case  is  clearly differentiated from our decisions in Potenciano vs. Dineros,  97  Phil.,  196 and Barrido vs. Barreto, 72 Phil., 187;  in these cases the conveyances by the registered owners were duly presented for registration before the land was levied upon by the creditor, ' while in the case at bar the reverse obtains.

Second:  There  is  adequate proof to support the Court below in holding that the sales Exhibit  A and B,  made by the former  registered owners Defensor  and Gayno  to appellants, were fictitious and  executed merely to defraud appellee Vicente Brillo of his judgment (in  Civil Case No. 1182.)   Note that said sales were made during, the pendency of the Case No. 1182 and just barely three  weeks prior to the rendition of  judgment  therein.   Then the sales were  not recorded in the Registry of  Deeds until November  5, 1949, after the sheriff had  already  levied on the lots  in question  to  execute  the  judgment  (in Civil Case No.  1182,)  and also  after appellants had filed  in said ease their third party claim with the sheriff.  Finally, no effort or attempt was ever made to complete  the registration of the sales by the presentation of the owners' duplicate certificates  of  title to  the Register so that the conveyances could be duly  noted thereon.  As the lower Court aptly observed, if plaintiffs had truly  purchased and paid valuable consideration  for the lots  in  question, they would have seen to it that their purchases were immediately recorded as required by law in order to perfect their titles and  protect themselves against any .subsequent  adverse claims of third persons.

The judgment appealed  from is affirmed,  with costs against appellants.   So ordered.

Parás, C. J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista  Angelo, Labrador,  Concepcion, and  Endencia,  JJ., concur.