Maria A. Garcia is appealing the Order of the Court of First Instance of Manila,  Judge Francisco  E.  Jose, presiding,  dated October 25, 1956, dismissing her complaint against Jesus Ocampo,  et al.

The facts involved in the case are not in dispute.  Only questions of law are in issue; hence, the appeal was made direct to this Tribunal.

The appealed Order states that Maria A. Garcia obtained a judgment for P1,630.80 against Jacinta Rivera, alleged owner of one-half of the land in question with an area of about  47.10  square meters, more or less, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 28709.   By virtue of the judgment,  a writ of  execution was  issued and the  City of Manila Sheriff levied on the rights, title and  participation of Jacinta Rivera in the land.  Said levy of execution was  duly registered in the Office of  the Register of Deeds of Manila.  Pursuant to the  levy, the sheriff  advertized the one-half portion of the land for sale, and eventually sold it to Maria A. Garcia in  1932.  One year thereafter, the sheriff issued to her  a final  deed of sale; and since then,  Maria A. Garcia had been  in  possession of and administrating the property sold to her and receiving the rents from the occupants thereof, so that by the year 1956, she had received in the way of rentals, more than P5,000.00.

On March 20, 1956,  Maria A. Garcia commenced  the present action against defendants Jesus Ocampo, Rosario Ocampo, Lao Kong Hing, and the heirs of Ramon Rivera, alleging that the defendants, particularly  Jesus Ocampo, shortly before  she filed her complaint, illegally entered the land in question and without her (Maria's) permission, executed a contract of lease over the same  property in favor of Lao Kong Hing, representing to the latter that they were the owners of the land, and that Lao Kong Hing was about to construct a building thereon, and she asked the court that the sale to her by the  sheriff in 1932  and in 1933 of the  rights of Jacinta Rivera over the land be ordered duly noted  on the  certificate of  title;  that  the Register of Deeds be ordered to cancel  Transfer Certificate of Title No.  28709, and  to  issue a new one in  her favor on  the one-half portion of the property,  the other  half corresponding to the heirs  of  Ramon  Rivera;  that  the lease contract over one-half of the property,  executed by the defendants  in favor  of  Lao Kong Hing be declared null and void; and that the defendants be ordered to  pay to her P10,000.00  as moral  damages and  P3,000.00  as attorney's fees.

Defendants filed a  motion for dismissal on the ground that the plaintiff's cause of action had already prescribed; that the complaint states no cause of  action; and  that there was another case pending between the same parties and for the same cause.  Pending resolution of the petition to dismiss,  the  parties  filed  pleadings  and memoranda, after which,  the trial court, as  already stated,  dismissed the complaint.

Incidentally,  it may be stated, that the  third  ground, as stated in the petition to dismiss, namely, that there was another case pending between the same parties, referred to a suit  filed  by Concepcion Ocampo et al, defendants herein, against Maria A. Garcia, plaintiff in the present case.   On appeal to the Supreme Court, the said case was decided in  favor  of  the  plaintiffs therein in  a  decision penned by Mr. Justice  Padilla,  supra, p. 553.

The order of  dismissal in the present  case  correctly states  all the legal  issues involved, the  pertinent facts, and the reasons of the trial court in dismissing the complaint.  We are reproducing  said Order, as follows:

"ORDER

This is a motion to dismiss filed by defendants, based on the following grounds:

1. That the plaintiff's cause  of action has already  prescribed and is barred now by the statute of limitations;
2. That the complaint states no cause of action;
3. That  there  is another case pending by the  same  parties for the same cause.
   

It is alleged in the complaint  that the plaintiff obtained a judgment against Jacinta Rivera, who was the owner of one-half of the land in question, in Civil Case No.  39466 of the Court of  First Instance of Manila  in  the amount of P1,630.80, plus interest and costs; and, when said  Judgment  became final,  a  writ  of execution was issued, and the  City  Sheriff levied on  all the  rights, title  and participation of said Jacinta Rivera to the  state of Manuel Rivera, particularly to the property described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 28709, which covers  the land in question.  The levy on execution  was duly registered in the  Office of the Register of Deeds of Manila, and then .the one-half of the land in question belonging to Jacinta Rivera was sold to the plaintiff in 1932, and one year thereafter a final deed of sale was executed by said sheriff in  favor of the herein plaintiff, and from that date plaintiff has been in possession of the  said one-half of  the land in question,  collecting the rents corresponding to her until the  time the herein defendants have distributed her possession and right over said land, said defendants, without the knowledge and permission of the plaintiff, having executed a contract of lease over the same property in favor of a certain Chinese named Lao Kong Hing.

The defendants contend that the plaintiff can  no longer enforce the decision in Civil Case No.  39466,  supra, which became final in the year 1932, because the  ten-year period  for the enforcement of any judgment, in accordance with article 1144, of the new Civil Code, had already expired when this case was originally filed on  March 20, 1956.

On the other hand, the plaintiff contends that her action does not consist in the enforcement of any judgment but for the enforcement of the sale in  her favor executed by the sheriff.  But the  Court finds that even in the  latter cause of  action  of  the  plaintiff has prescribed,  because the  deed of  sale executed by the sheriff  in 1933, and, from that date to March 20, 1956, when the present case was filed, 23 years have elapsed, Article  1144 of the new Civil Code, as well  as  section 43 of Public  Act  No.  190,  provides that action upon a written contract  must be filed within ten years. By virtue of said deed of sale in favor of the plaintiff, she  had her right  of action since 1933 to ask for the cancellation of the certificate  of title for  the purpose of the issuance of another, wherein she should appear as owner of one-half of the land in question.  So that from said  year,  1933, up  to 1956, the  ten-year prescriptive period has elapsed in excess.  Adverse possession, as alleged by the plaintiff, having possessed the land in question for such a long time is not a means of acquisition, because a registered land can not be lost or acquired  by adverse possession.

In connection with the second  ground of  the motion to dismiss, the Court finds that there is no allegation  in the complaint that the auction  sale, as well  as  the final one,  executed  by the sheriff in favor of the herein  plaintiff over the land in question has been registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds  of Manila.  The registration  in said Office of the auction sale  upon levy on execution is an essential  element for the validity of  the sale.  Article 463 of Public Act No. 190 provides that, a sale of real property upon  a levy  on execution, the officer (the sheriff) must give to the purchaser a certificate  of  sale wherein, among other  things,  the  date  of the expiration period of redemption  should be stated and  a duplicate thereof must be filed in the Office of the Registrar of Land  Titles, which is  now the  Office of the Register  of Deeds.   It  will be seen that  the  registration  of said certificate of title in the Office of the Register of Deeds  is one  of the conditions  for its validity, for the reason that  the judgment debtor or a  redemptioner has 12 months to redeem said property.   It  is true  that  Section 465, same law, provides that the 12 months for the redemption is counted' after the sale,  but  it  does not  state that said 12  months should  be counted from the  date of the sale.  It only says 'after the sale,' because the registration of said sale in the Office of the Register of  Deeds is an essential requirement.  It can not be said  that its registration is only required to affect third persons, because it is not only the judgment debtor who can redeem the  property  sold  at the auction sale but also 'a creditor having a lien by attachment,  judgment, or mortgage  on the  property sold, or in some part thereof,  subsequent to that on which the property was sold'  (Sec. 464, same Public Act No. 190; underlining supplied).

These redemptioners  are third parties and, therefore, the auction sale should be recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds, as also provided for in Article 77 of Act No. 456 (Tolentino vs.  Agcaoili, G. R.  No.  L-4349-51, promulgated May 28, 1952).  And it  should be noted that the law, Article 463, same Public Act No. 190, requires the filing of said auction  sale with the  Office  of the Register of Deeds, but the law does  not  require  such annotation in the final sale.   The  reason  is because  the final  sale is executed after  the expiration  of  the 12-month redemption period,  when  redemption is no longer  allowable.  Beside, in the same ruling  cited by  plaintiff, which  is Philippine Executive  Commissions vs.  Abadilla et al.  (74 Phil.  68),   the annotation of  the  auction sale  was  allowed  'for' purposes of redemption one year from such date as the auction sale may be registered.'

Therefore, the auction  sale,  not having  been then registered in the Office  of  the Register of Deeds of Manila, it is too late to do it now after 23 years, and, even if it is now annotated, the 12-month redemption period, which should be counted  from the  date of its registration, has not yet expired, and, such being the case, plaintiff is not yet  the absolute owner of the land in question.    And ;until after the  expiration of the  12-month redemption period,  plaintiff has no right  to the possession, and, if rents were collected by her, those rents 'shall be a credit  upon redemption money to  be paid,' in accordance with Sec. 30, Rules of Court; which is now applicable to the case.  And if defendants' allegation is true that plaintiff  has already collected as rentals  more  than P5,000.00, it appears  that the judgment in Civil  Case No. 39466 for P1,630.80 was fully satisfied, and,  therefore, the  land in question may  be  considered as redeemed.

As to the third  ground of the  motion to dismiss, the Court finds that the alleged other pending action, whether  or  not is similar to the present action, was filed later than the present action. That ground of  the motion  to  dismiss,  as provided for in our  Rules of Court, must be construed that  the pending action was already filed when the action sought to be dismissed was filed.

In conclusion, the  Court finds that  the complaint does not allege sufficient cause of action,  and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief' sought in her complaint.  And, in  view of this  conclusion of the Court, the petition for injunction filed by said plaintiff to enjoin the  defendants or their attorneys or representatives from applying for a permit to construct a building on  the land in  question, is hereby denied.

Wherefore, the plaintiff may amend her complaint within five (5) days from the receipt of a copy of this order; otherwise, the case is hereby ordered dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, October 25,  1956.

Francisco E. Jose
Judge."

We agree with the trial court in its reasoning, particularly on that portion if the Order, to the effect that inasmuch as the sale of the property made to Maria A. Garcia by the sheriff in 1932 as well as the final deed of sale issued in 1933 were never recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Manila, it was all contrary  to the provisions of law about judicial sales,.   Furthermore, in auction sales, the  law provides a period of  12  months within which to redeem the property sold, and that this period begins to run  not from the date of sale but from the time of registration of the sale in the Office of the Register of Deeds.   In the present case, the period of redemption has not yet commenced to run not only in favor of other redemptioners contemplated by law, so that Maria A. Garcia has not yet become the absolute owner of the property she had bought. And one may take the view that the rentals Maria A. Garcia had  received since she took possession of the property after the sale, and for which she was under obligation to render account, may be considered  as money received by  her  on account of the redemption price.

In the aforementioned case of Concepcion Ocampo, et al. vs. Maria A. Garcia, G. R. No. L-11260,^* we  affirmed the decision of the trial court, which, acting as a land registration court, directed the Register of Deeds for the City of Manila to issue another owner's  duplicate Transfer Certificate of Title No. 28709, the same transfer  certificate of title covering the land in the  present case; and to cancel the two encumbrances or notations appearing on the back thereof, one  of those encumbrances or notations being the notice of the  levy  on  execution  made by the  sheriff  to satisfy the judgment obtained by Maria A. Garcia against Jacinta Rivera in Civil  Case No. 39466 for the sum of P1,630.80, with interest, plus P50.24 for costs.  The reason for the cancellation of the said encumbrance was the fact that rentals, amounting toP5,200.00, received by Maria A. Garcia from the land  in question was more than enough to satisfy the  judgment.

With the cancellation of said encumbrance, there remains nothing in the way of  cause of action to support the complaint of Maria A. Garcia in the present case.  In other words, as far  as  it concerns her, there  no longer  is any notation of the levy of  execution on the transfer certificate of title, covering the land in the present case; the sale to her was never registered in the  Office of the Register of Deeds, naturally,  said sale  was never annotated  in. the transfer certificate of title.  And even assuming that the sale had force, though made without complying with the provisions of  law applicable,  there  is the  fact that  the amount of judgment obtained by her against Jacinta Rivera for P1,630.80 was more than satisfied and the land sold to her may be considered as redeemed with the rentals she had  been  receiving since 1933  amounting to  P5,200.00.

In view of the foregoing, the Order of dismissal appealed from is hereby affirmed.  With costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concur.

---

^* Supra, p, 553.