Case Digest (G.R. No. 127830)
Facts:
Manolet Lavides v. Ernesto B. Pre, G.R. No. 127830, October 17, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Manolet Lavides bought six parcels from spouses Policarpio Castro and Natalia Dy Castro by two deeds characterized as pacto de retro dated March 8, 1975 and April 1, 1975; these instruments were neither registered nor annotated on the respective Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs). In May 1976 Vimarco, Inc. sued the Castros in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal (Pasay City), docketed as Civil Case No. 5122‑P, and obtained an ex parte writ of preliminary attachment on May 28, 1976 which was registered/annotated on the Quezon TCTs covering the subject parcels.
The Castros moved to dissolve the attachment on June 25, 1976; the CFI rendered judgment for Vimarco, Inc. on October 13, 1976. The Castros appealed to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA‑G.R. No. SP‑06276) which affirmed on June 3, 1977; their petition to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L‑47410) was dismissed on July 29, 1983. After finality, an order of execution issued November 29, 1983; a Sheriff's Notice of Auction Sale on Execution was published in December 1983 with the first auction set for January 10, 1984.
On January 10, 1984 petitioner served a third‑party claim on the Deputy Sheriff of Pasay City asserting ownership of the six parcels; he filed a separate action (Civil Case No. 1719‑6) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gumaca, Quezon (Branch 61) seeking injunctive relief, and a temporary restraining order was served January 17, 1984 and a writ of preliminary injunction issued March 20, 1984. The RTC conducted trial on the competing claims (whether the registered levy/attachment or the earlier unregistered pacto de retro had legal precedence) and on August 31, 1984 dissolved the preliminary injunction and dismissed petitioner’s complaint and counterclaim.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. CV No. 47710), which on October 10, 1996 affirmed the RTC decision; the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (resolution dated January 21, 1997). Petitioner filed the present petition for review before...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the CFI’s order of preliminary attachment in Civil Case No. 5122‑P become final and enforceable?
- Are petitioner’s unregistered pacto de retro deeds superior to the levy on execution (annotated attachment) held by Vimarco, Inc.?
- Does Vimarco, Inc.’s alleged actual knowledge of petitioner’s claim amount to registration-equivalent notice so as to invalidate its superior right?
- Was the denial of petitioner’s c...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)