ROMAN GUERRERO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JUAN V. AGUSTIN, ET AT,., DEFENDANTS, MARCELINO MACLANG, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Roman Guerrero obtained a
levy in execution against Juan V. Agustin in connection with a parcel
of land belonging to the latter covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T—2134 in CAR Case No. 58—NE—56 which was annotated on the
back thereof on January 5, 1957. On August 21, 1956, Agustin executed
in favor of Marcelino Maclang and Corazon Marcelo a deed of mortgage on
the same property but the same was annotated on the back of the
aforesaid certificate of title only on August 20, 1958.

Agustin failed to pay the judgment rendered against him and so his
property was sold at public auction for the sum of P2,000.00 in favor
of Guerrero, the certificate of sale having been annotated on the back
of the same title on November 24, 1958. Agustin having failed to redeem
the property within, the reglementary period, a final deed of sale was
executed in favor of Guerrero on November 18, 1959, which was also
annotated on the back of the same title on March 17, 1960. As a
consequence, the court ordered Marcelino Maclang, the mortgagee, to
surrender within five days the certificate of title covering the
property so that it may be cancelled and a new one issued in favor of
Guerrero, and having Maclang failed to do so, Guerrero moved to have
him declared in contempt for having disobeyed the order. The court
however denied the motion upon the manifestation of Maclang’s counsel
that he would be willing to surrender the title provided that the
mortgage lien standing in his favor be annotated on the backs of the
new title. Accordingly, the certificate of title was surrendered and
complying with the order of the court the register of deeds issued a
new title in favor of Guerrero but annotating on the back thereof the
mortgage existing in favor of Maclang and his co—mortgagee. Whereupon,
Guerrero instituted an action before the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija to secure the cancellation of the mortgage of Maclang from
the title issued in his name on the ground that his right over the
property was superior and paramount.

Defendants resisted the claim contending that their mortgage lien was
superior to that of plaintiff inasmuch as the deed of mortgage covering
the same was executed on August 21, 1956, or prior to the registration
of the levy in execution obtained by the plaintiff.

After issues were joined, the court a quo
rendered decision sustaining the claim of plaintiff thereby ordering
the cancellation of the mortgage executed in favor of defendants from
the certificate of title issued in the name of the former. Hence the
present appeal.

It is appellants’ contention that while the writ of attachment issued
in favor of appellee in CAR Case No. 58—NE—56 was registered on January
5, 1957, or ahead of the registration of appellants’ mortgage lien, the
latter lien is still superior over that of the former even if it was
registered later in view of a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain
rendered on January 28, 1903 wherein it was held that an attachment
does not constitute a real right and its annotation on the title is not
preferred to an unrecorded deed. Appellants argue that said decision
has a binding force in this jurisdiction because the same Mortgage Law
under which it is based has likewise force and effect in the
Philippines. In the light of the aforesaid decision, appellants
contend, the notice of attachment issued in favor of appellee cannot
constitute a real right that may bind the land and its annotation
cannot give him any right of preference over the recorded mortgage
executed in their favor. Appellants argument is devoid of merit. To
begin with, appellants overlook the fact that the interest of appellee
which was annotated on the back of the original title was not a notice
of attachment as they claim but a levy in execution as may be plainly
seen from the annotation or inscription appearing on the back of the
title itself. Thus, said annotation reads:

“Entry 29156/Nt-2134; Kind—Execution in favor
of—Roman Guerrero; Conditions—All the rights, interests and
participation of Juan V. Agustin in and over the property described in
this title has been levied in connection with Case No. 58-NE-56 of the
CAR; Date of Instrument—1/4,1957, Date of Inscription—1/5, 1957; at
11:07 a.m. (Sgd.) F. C. Cuizon, Register of Deeds.”

In the second place, even assuming that the lien that was
registered in favor of appellee merely partakes of the nature of an
attachment, the same still should be deemed superior over that of
appellants’ mortgage lien it appearing that the same was created much
ahead in time. The decision invoked by appellants may be correct if we
have to decide this issue in line with the provisions of the Spanish
Mortgage Law, but the fact remains that this case is covered by the
Land Registration Act because the land in question is covered by a
Torrens title. Thus, the pertinent law is Section 51 of Act 496 which
provides that every conveyance mortgage, lease, lien, attachment and
the like affecting registered land shall, if registered in the office
of the register of deeds, be a notice to all persons from the ‘time of
such “registering, filing or entering.” And in accordance with Section
50 of the same Act, the act of registration constitutes the operative
act that affects the land and binds the whole world. From this it
follows that the lien created in favor of appellee with regard to the
land in controversy, be it a levy in execution or notice of attachment,
is prior and superior over the mortgage lien created in favor of
appellants because of the fact that the former was established ahead of
the latter. This is the essence of registration that constitutes a
cardinal feature of our Torrens system.

It
cannot be contended that appellee’s lien over the property became
subordinated to that of the mortgage Hen of appellants for the reason
that the sale of the property at public auction and the consequent
registration of the sale in favor of appellee took place after the
registration of the deed of mortgage of appellants, for it has been
held in a long line of decisions that the rights acquired by a
purchaser at an execution sale revert back to the date of the
annotation of the levy, with the concomitant right to have a
certificate of title issued in his favor on the basis thereof as if it
were annotated on the same date.^[1]

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against appellants.

Bengzon, C. J., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B, L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]Tuazon vs. Koymundo, 28 Phil., 289; Worcester vs. Ocampo, 34 Phil., 646; Government of the Philippines vs. Aballe, 60 Phil;, 986; Director of Lands vs. Abad, 61 Phil., 479.