The issue involved in this case is whether the petitioners have  right  to the cancellation  of  the preliminary attachment lien recorded in favor of the oppositors  at  the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No.  48508 in the  name of Daniel A. Jordan and his wife and carried over and copied at the  back of Transfer  Certificate  of  Title No. 38065 subsequently issued in the name of the petitioner Metropolitan Insurance Co., one of the  appellees.

The record discloses that on June 3,  1952, Daniel  A. Jordan executed a  real estate mortgage in favor  of  the Metropolitan  Insurance Co.  over  a  parcel  of land with improvements  thereon,  covered  by  Transfer  Certificate of Title No.  49508,  to secure  the payment of a loan of P12,000.  For failure of  the mortgagor Daniel A. Jordan to pay his loan plus interest, the Metropolitan Insurance Co. foreclosed the mortgage  and the  property  was  sold by the  Sheriff of Manila at public  auction on December 15,  1953, under the  provisions of Act 3135  as amended, upon  previous publication of the corresponding notices required by law  which were published, once  a week,  for three consecutive weeks,  on November 9,  16 and 23, 1953, in The Manila  Chronicle,  a newspaper of general circulation.  In  that extrajudicial sale at public auction,  the Metropolitan Insurance Co. was the highest bidder, hence the mortgaged property  was sold unto it for the sum of P14,5OO and, subsequently,  on January 6,  1954, the Sheriff of Manila executed  the  corresponding certificate  of  sale, the last portion of  which clearly states:

"I  HEREBY CERTIFY that said purchaser  METROPOLITAN INSURANCE Company, being the highest bidder and the mortgagee, considered  himself paid to the amount  of fot:rtdrn thousand five hundred pesos  (P14,500) the sale price of tho property.  I, therefore, issued to him/her this certificate under the grantees  prescribed by law.

The period of redemption of said property sold expires on the 16th day of December,  1954."

Prior to the sale at public auction, to wit, on January 15, 1958, in Civil  Case No. 18482, entitled Elino Pigtain and  Teodora Carpio  Pigtain  vs.  Daniel  A.  Jordan and Anastacia Angeles Jordan, the oppositors-appellants  obtained from the Court of First Instance of Manila a, writ of preliminary attachment,  by  virtue of which the properties mortgaged to the Metropolitan Insurance Co. were levied, upon.  The writ of  preliminary  attachment was filed  in the office  of the Register  of Deeds of Manila on June 7, 1053, and annotated at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 48508, but not in the owner's duplicate of said Transfer Certificate of Title which was in the possession of the petitioner Metropolitan Insurance Co.

Neither  Elino Pigtain and Teodora  Carpio Pigtain, as attaching creditors, nor Daniel  A.  Jordan  and  Anastacia Angeles Jordan, as mortgagors, did exercise the right of redemption granted by Section  6 of Act 3135 as amended up to December 16, 1954, hence on December 17, 1954 the Metropolitan Insurance Co. registered in  the Office of the Register of Deeds  the certificate of sale executed in  its favor by the Sheriff of the  City of Manila together with an affidavit of consolidation and, by virtue of these instruments, on the same date, the Transfer  Certificate of Title No. 48508 in the name of Daniel A. Jordan was cancelled and in lieu thereof Transfer Certificate of Title No. 38065 was issued in the name of Metropolitan  Insurance Co. On February 17, 1955, the oppositors-appellants Elino  Pigtain and Teodora Carpio Pigtain tendered to the  Metropolitan Insurance Co. the sum of P14.500, covered by the National City Bank of New York manager's check No. M-59127, to redeem the properties  in question, but the  Metropolitan Insurance Co.  refused to  accept it.

Prior to February 17, 1955, or  to be more  exact,  on February 14, 1955, the Metropolitan Insurance Co. filed a petition for the cancellation of the preliminary attachment recorded in favor of the oppositors-appellants at the back of the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 48508  as well as in the Transfer Certificate of  Title No.  38065 subsequently issued in the name of the petitioner-appellee Metropolitan Insurance Co., on the ground that the latter had acquired absolute ownership  of the properties  in question for the period of redemption expired on December 16, 1954 without the herein appellants as attaching creditors  having exercised their right to redeem the properties in question sold at public auction.  Answering the petition, the oppositors-appellants averred that on February  17, 1955 they tendered the sum of P14,500, covered by a, bank manager's check, in payment of the redemption price  of the  properties  in question; that said payment  was tendered within one year  from December  17, 1954, the date of the  registration of the certificate of sale executed by  the Sheriff of the City  of Manila and  the  issuance of the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 38065 in the  name  of the Metropolitan Insurance  Co.,  and that  the annotation of  the preliminary  attachment in question should be  maintained because it should be  given preference over  the sale  at public auction of the mortgaged properties in  question in favor of the petitioners.

After due  trial, the  court a quo ordered the cancellation of the annotation of the preliminary  attachment in  question, hence this appeal on the ground that  (1) the  lower court  has no jurisdiction to summarily decide the case at bar by reason of the  controversial nature  of the  same; and (2)  that the  court erred  in ordering the annotation of the cancellation of the attachment  lien at  the back of Certificate of Title No. 38065 issued  in  the name  of the petitioner-appellee Metropolitan Insurance Co.

While the  appeal was pending, the  Metropolitan  Insurance Co. sold the properties involved  in this case  to  the spouses Loreto Z.  Marcaida  and  Miguel de Marcaida and, upon petition duly acted upon  by this  Court, said spouses were  made parties  in this case  in  substitution  of  the original petitioner.

As could readily be seen, the main question is whether the  annotation of the preliminary attachment in question in  the aforecited transfer  certificate  of  title should be cancelled in view  of the facts surrounding the case.   The petitioners sustain  the affirmative  contending that the oppositors-appellants having failed to exercise their right to redeem the properties in question within one year,  or to be more exact, up to December 16,  1954,  the preliminary attachment in  question had become  valueless and should not  remain in the Transfer Certificate of  Title No. 38065 to the  prejudice of the Metropolitan  Insurance Co., the true owner of said properties.   It is undisputed that only on February  17, 1955 did the oppositors-appellants tender to the petitioner-appellee, the manager's check No. 159127 for  the sum of P14,500 to redeem the properties in question and unquestionably,  and  on that date the period of one  year granted to the oppositors-appellants as judgment creditors to  redeem  the  land,  had  already elapsed, for Section  6  of  Act  No. 3135 provides:

"In all cases in which an  extrajudicial  sale is made under the special power herein before referred to, the debtor, his successors in interest or any judicial creditor of said debtor, or  any person having a lien on the property  subsequent to  the  mortgage or deed of trust under  which the property is sold, may redeem the  same at any time within the term of one  year from and after the date of the sale; and such  redemption shall be governed by the provisions of sections four hundred and sixty-four to  four hundred and sixty- six inclusive, of the  Code of Civil Procedure, (now sections  25 to 31 of Rule  B9  of the Rules  of Court)  insofar  as these are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act."

It is however claimed that on December  1, 1954,  the appellants wrote the appellee,  the Metropolitan Insurance Co.,  signifying  their willingness to assume the obligation to pay all the accounts of Daniel A. Jordan and Anastacia Angeles Jordan with the appellee; that subsequently  they personally manifested said readiness to the appellee and its counsel and that on February 17, 1955 they tendered to the appellee  a manager's check for the  sum of P14,500 to redeem the properties  in question, and  therefore  the preliminary  attachment should  be maintained  until  the decision in Civil Case No. 18482 mentioned above is finally decided by the corresponding court.  We find  no merit in their contention.  Carefully examined, the offer  made by the oppositors-appellants to the petitioner-appellee through their letter  of December 1, 1954 and their personal interview with the petitioner-appellee and its counsel, at most can  be considered as an  offer to pay the  obligation  of Daniel A. Jordan to the petitioner-appellee,  but the same cannot be legally considered as tender of payment for  the purpose  of  exercising  their right of redemption.  And when on  February 17, 1955 they  tendered  the  aforesaid manager's check for the sum of P14,500, their  right to redeem had already elapsed, for in the certificate of sale executed by  the Sheriff of Manila, the period  of redemption was  fixed to December 16,  1954.  But again  the appellants claim that in this particular case, the statutory redemption period of one year should begin  from December  17, 1954 when the auction  sale was actually recorded in  the  office of the Register of Deeds of Manila, and not from December 15, 1953 when the sale at public auction of the properties in question  took  place.   We  find  this contention  to  be also  untenable in view of the clear provision of the aforesaid  Section 6  of Act No. 3135  to the  effect  that  the right of redemption should  be exercised within  one year from the date of the sale.  It should not  be overlooked that  the extrajudicial  sale  in  question was  in pursuance of a mortgage and not by  virtue of an ordinary writ of execution in a civil case.  The Metropolitan  Insurance  Co. was  a mortgagee  whose right to be paid  the  entire loan guaranteed by the mortgage is preferential to  that of any subsequent creditor  the  mortgagor  might have  after  the execution of the mortgage.  The preliminary  attachment in question was therefore subordinate to the mortgage in favor of the Metropolitan  Insurance  Co.  and unless  the whole indebtedness for which the  properties  in  question were mortgaged is  wholly  satisfied, the herein  appellants as attaching creditors acquired no right over said mort- gaged properties for the satisfaction of their  credit.   The latter,  therefore cannot claim  preferential right  on  the mortgaged properties in  question for the  satisfaction  of. their credit over that of the petitioner-appellee, the Metropolitan Insurance Co., because the mortgage in the latter's favor was recorded prior to the attachment lien  of the appellants.  And since the appellants had failed to redeem the land in question within the time  allowed by Section 6 of Act 3135, the appellee has perfect right to secure the cancellation of the attachment lien in question.

The  appellants  also claim that there being  a controversial matter  in the present case, the court can not summarily order  the cancellation  of the  annotation  of the attachment lien in  question and  that the same should be brought  in an ordinary  civil action.  This contention  is also untenable, for  Section  112 of the  Land Registration Act provides as follows:

"* * * * Any  registered owner  or other person  in interest may at any time apply by  petition to the  court, upon the ground that registered  interests of  any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant,  or inchoate, have terminated  and  ceased; or that new interests have arisen or heen created which do not appear upon the certificate; or that any error, omission, or mistake  was made  in entering  a certificate  or  any  memorandum   thereon,  or  on any duplicate certificate;  * * *; Provided, however,  That this section shall not  be construed to give  the  court authority to open  the original decree of registration, and  that nothing  shall  be done or ordered by the court which shall impair the title  or  other  interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value  and  in  good faith, or his heirs  or assigns,  without his or their  written  consent."

We believe that the above provision of law is completely applicable to  the present case because there  has  been entered in the  Transfer Certificate of Title  No. 38065 an attachment lien which should  not be  maintained  for  it had lost its legal value and its  annotation at  the back of the said title  will work to the prejudice of the true owner of the  properties  in question who,  for value and  in good faith,  had acquired them at  a legally conducted public auction sale.   We hold that the matter in controversy has been properly  brought in the original registration case under the provisions of Section 112 of  the Land Registration Act mentioned above and  pursuant to the ruling laid down in the case of  Cavan vs. Wislizenus, 48  Phil. 632.

Wherefore,  the  decision  appealed  from  is   hereby affirmed in toto, with costs.

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