EDGARDO O. ALZATE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This case was originally instituted in the Court of First
Instance of Quezon City by Ismael
Alzate against the defendants Philippine National
Bank and the Register of Deeds for Quezon City,
praying that transfer certificate of title No. 38647 of Quezon
City, in the name of Ismael Alzate,
be declared as the legitimate title to the land described in the complaint and
that transfer certificate of title No. 44422, also of Quezon
City and covering the same land, but in the name of defendant Philippine
National Bank, be declared null and void.

The facts are the subject of stipulation between the parties, and
are set forth substantially as follows:

The former owner of the land in question was Rufino
Ellison under TCT No. 21557 of Manila.  On March
17, 1944, Ellison sold the land to Emeterio
Ramos.  On February 1, 1946, Ramos filed a petition in the Court of
First Instance of Manila alleging that TCT No. 21557 had been lost and/or
destroyed and praying for its reconstitution. 
Pursuant to said petition the Court, on February 16, 1946, ordered the reconstitution of the title in
the name of Ellison and further ordered the Register of Deeds for Manila to issue a new title in favor of Emeterio Ramos by virtue of the deed of sale executed by
Ellison in his favor on March 17, 1944. 
Accordingly, the Register of Deeds issued, on March
12, 1946, TCT No.
78189 in the name of Emeterio Ramos.  Ramos then sold the land in favor of Pacita T. Javier. 
TCT No. 78189 was cancelled and TCT No. 2306 of Manila was issued on August 2, 1946 in the name of the vendee.  On October 30, 1957, Pacita T. Javier
sold the land to Ismael Alzate, the ori­ginal
plaintiff in this case.  TCT No. 2306 in
the name of Javier was thereupon cancelled and TCT No. 38647 of Quezon City,^[1] was issued on the same date in the name of Alzate.  During the pendency of this case Ismael Alzate sold the land to Edgardo
O. Alzate, who has since then been substituted as party-plaintiff.

Meanwhile, on December
13, 1946, some nine
months after the issuance of TCT No. 78189 of Manila in the name of Emeterio
Ramos and more than four (4) months after its cancellation by TCT No. 2306 in
the name of Pacita T. Javier, Ramos obtained another
certificate of title for the same land from the Register of Deeds for Manila.  The
title bears No. 3936, issued in his name on the strength of the deed of sale
executed on March 17, 1944, which appears to have been presented for
registration and entered on the Day Book of the Register of Deeds for Manila on the same date.  TCT No. 3936 of Manila was then transferred to the Office of the
Register of Deeds for Quezon City, the land being located there, and TCT No. 3936 of Manila became TCT No. 28281 of Quezon City, still in the name of Ramos.

On July 6, 1955, pursuant
to the final judgment for a sum of money rendered by the Municipal Court of
Manila in Civil Case No. 27668, entitled “Philippine National Bank vs. Emeterio Ramos, et al.,” the land covered by TCT No.
28281 of Quezon City in the name of Ramos was levied upon
on execution and sold at public auction to the Philip­pine National Bank as the
highest bidder.  No redemption was made
within the period provided for by law and so a final deed of sale was executed
by the Sheriff and registered with the Register of Deeds for Quezon City.  By virtue, thereof, TCT No. 28281 was cancelled and a new
title, TCT No. 44422 of Quezon
City in the name of Philippine National Bank was
issued.

The question is which of the two certificates of title (TCT No.
38647 of Quezon City
in the name of Ismael Alzate
and TCT No. 44422 of Quezon City
in the name of Philippine National Bank) should be considered and recog­nized
as valid.  The trial court decided in
favor of plain­tiff and adjudged him to be the rightful owner of the land, and
from that decision the Philippine National Bank in­terposed this appeal.

The bank maintains that since the deed of sale of March 17, 1944
was presented to the Register of Deeds for Manila and entered in his Day Book
(Entry No. 14242, Vol. 8) on the same date, although the corresponding transfer
certificate of title was issued in the name of Ramos as vendee only on December
13, 1946, and since the title of the bank by virtue of the sale on execution in
its favor had its source in the registration of that deed of sale in favor of
Ramos, said title, in effect, retroacted to the date of such registration and
there­fore antedated by two years
the other transfer certificate of title (No. 78189) issued by the Register of
Deeds for Manila in favor of Ramos on March 12, 1946 pursuant to the order of
reconstitution issued by the Court on February 16, 1946, which title is the
root of the one now in the name of plaintiff.

Defendant relies on Section 56 of Act 496, which provides as
follows:

“Each register of deeds shall keep an entry book in which,
upon payment of the filing fee, he shall enter in the or­der of their reception
all deeds and other voluntary instruments, and all copies of writs or other
process filed with him relating to registered land.  He
shall note in such book the year, month, day, hour, and minute of reception of
all instru­ments, in the order in which they were received.  They shall be regarded as re­gistered from
the time so noted, and the memorandum of each instrument when made on the
certificate of title to which it refers shall bear the same date; Pro­vided,
however, that no registration, annotation, or memorandum on a certi­ficate of
title shall be made unless the fees prescribed therefor
by this Act are paid within fifteen days’ time after the date of the
registration of the deed, instrument, order, or document in the entry book or
day book, and in case said fee is not paid within the time above mentioned,
such entry shall be null and void.” (underlining supplied)

The bank claims priority on the basis of the regis­tration of the
deed of sale in the Entry Book on March
17, 1944.  But lost in the
bank’s argument is the fact that the same deed of sale was also the basis of
the right of Pacita T. Javier, the first vendee of
Ramos.  After all, Ramos became the owner
of the land subject-matter of this case by virtue of that deed of sale, without
which he could not have sold the land to Javier.  Admittedly, therefore, both the bank and the
first vendee (Javier) trace their claim to a common source – the deed of sale
of March 17, 1944.  Since it is not
disputed that Javier’s title bears an earlier date than that of the bank, the
former must prevail over the latter.

“Where two certificates purport to include the same land, the
earlier in date prevails.  x x x In successive registrations,
where more than one certificate is issued in respect of a particular estate or interest in land, the person claiming
under the prior certificate is entitled
to the estate or interest; and that person is deemed to  hold under the prior certificate who is the
holder of, or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person who
was the holder of the earliest certificate issued in respect thereof.  While the acts in this country do not
expressly cover the case of the issue of two certificates for the same land,
they provide that a registered owner shall hold the title, and the effect of
this undoubtedly is that where two certi­ficates purport to include the same
regis­tered land, the holder of the earlier one continues to hold the
title.” (Legarda vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 595) underlining
supplied.

It must also be noted that when TCT No. 78189 was issued to Ramos
on March 12, 1946 (pursuant to a lawful court order), it was judicially
pronounced that Ellison’s duplicate certificate of title had been destroyed and/or
lost.  On the other hand, there is no
proof at all that Ramos was able to get another certificate of title on
December 13, 1946 (TCT No. 3936, which is the root of the bank’s title) because
he presented Ellison’s dup­licate certificate of title.  Even assuming that he did present Ellison’s
duplicate certificate of title be­cause it was subsequently found, still it
would not affect the previous decree of the court ordering recon­stitution.

Anyway, the Rules of Court (Rule 39, Section 35, par. 2) provide
that purchaser of real property at an execution sale “x x x shall be substituted to and
acquire all the right, title, interest and claim of the judgment debtor as of
the time of the levy, except as against the judgment debtor in possession, in
which case the substitution shall be effective as of the date of the deed.  x x x” It is an established doctrine that a judgment
creditor only acquires at an execution sale the identical interest possessed by
the judgment debtor in the property which is the subject of the sale.  It follows that if at the time the judgment
debtor had no more right to or interest in the property because he had already
sold it to another, then the purchaser acquires nothing.  (Potenciano vs. Dineros, 97 Phil. 196, 198.)

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with
costs against appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and
Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1]
The registration record had been transferred in the meantime to Quezon City because the land is located there.