Case Digest (G.R. No. 142687)
Facts:
Spouses Francisco and Bernardina Rodriguez v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Spouses Christopher and Ma. Angelica Barrameda, and Spouses Antonio and Maridel Calingo, G.R. No. 142687, July 20, 2006, Supreme Court Second Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Spouses Francisco and Bernardina Rodriguez were judgment creditors who obtained a money judgment against respondents Spouses Antonio and Maridel Calingo in Civil Case No. 88-2159 (Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 65). The Calingos were the registered owners of a house and lot in Marcelo Green Village, Paranaque, which was mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines and later vested in the Home Mutual Development Fund (HMDF/Pag-ibig).
On April 27, 1992 the Calingos and respondents Spouses Christopher and Ma. Angelica Barrameda executed a deed of sale with assumption of mortgage by which the Calingos purportedly sold the property to the Barramedas; the Barramedas issued two checks and later completed payment. The deed of sale, however, was not registered with the Register of Deeds. Instead, on May 29, 1992 the Barramedas filed an affidavit of adverse claim, which was annotated on the certificate of title (Entry No. 3439). The Barramedas moved into the property on June 2, 1992.
On July 13, 1992 a notice of levy pursuant to a writ of execution issued in favor of the Rodriguezes was annotated on the certificate of title. The Barramedas contended that their adverse claim was already annotated and therefore the levy was illegal; they later filed further affidavits and correspondence with HMDF seeking guidance and assistance for loan settlement and transfer but did not register the deed of sale nor show sustained effort to obtain the owner’s duplicate title from HMDF. On August 21, 1992 the Barramedas remitted the balance of the purchase price and took a waiver from the Calingos that the property was clear, save for the assumed mortgage.
The Barramedas filed a petition for quieting of title with a prayer for preliminary injunction in the RTC (filed December 2, 1992) asking among other reliefs that the execution sale be enjoined and the levy cancelled. The RTC dismissed the Barramedas’ petition, finding their adverse-claim annotation insufficient to prevail over the levy, noting that the deed was not registered and that there was collusion between the Calingos and the Barramedas to defraud third parties.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, holding that the Barramedas’ adverse claim inscribed on the certificate of title was still effective when the levy was annotated on July 13, 1992 and, citing Sajonas v. Court of Appeals, that the notice of levy could not prevail over the existing ad...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should respondents Barrameda’s adverse claim inscribed on the certificate of title prevail over the levy on execution made to satisfy petitioners’ judgment against the registered owners (the ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)