CHENG SIONG LAM & CO., APPLICANT AND APPELLANT, VS. TEODORO R. YANGCO, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal taken by the applicant Cheng Siong Lam & Co. from
the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija,
the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

“Consequently,
the court denies the aforesaid motion with respect to the cancellation
of original certificate of title No. 18017 of the registry of deeds of
Nueva Ecija and the issuance of a new one in lieu thereof in favor of
the petitioner, and likewise denies the petition of Teodoro R. Yangco
to the same effect while it is not satisfactorily proven that the final
and definitive certificate of sale has already been issued in his
.favor by the sheriff of said province; but orders the cancellation of
original certificates of title Nos. 16444 and 16449, and the issuance
of new ones, free of all incumbrance, in lieu thereof in favor of the
petitioner Cheng Siong Lam & Co., upon payment of the corresponding
fees. So ordered.”

In support of its appeal, the appellant assigns the following sole alleged error as committed by the court a quo in its judgment in question, to wit:

“The
trial court erred in not declaring the attachment on lot No. 1322 in
favor of the appellant is a lien more preferred than the lien of
execution in favor of the appellee on the said property and in refusing
to order the cancellation of original certificate of title No. 18017
and the issuance of another in its place in favor of the appellant
notwithstanding the fact that the said writ of attachment in favor of
the appellant was registered in accordance with the provisions of
section 194 of the Administrative Code as amended prior to the
annotation of the writ of execution and sale in favor of the appellee
on the original certificate of title No. 18017.”

Pursuant to the judgment rendered on lot No. 1322 of cadastral case No.
51, G. L. R. O. Rec. No. 1047, the corresponding final decree was
issued on July 18, 1932, in favor of Pedro Goco and Rosa Borja, and
original certificate of title No. 18017 of the registry of deeds of
Nueva Ecija was issued on October 12th of the same year.

The
applicant Cheng Siong Lam & Co., as plaintiff in civil case No.
42634 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, obtained a writ of
preliminary attachment against the properties of the defendants Pedro
Goco and Rosa Borja. Pursuant to said writ, the provincial sheriff of
Nueva Ecija, on August 23, 1932, attached the properties of the
defendants Pedro Goco and Rosa Borja, among which was lot No. 1322
described in said original certificate of title No. 18017. The writ of
attachment in question and the notice that the same had been levied
were registered in the registry of deeds on the same date, August 23,
1932, in accordance with the provisions of section 194 of the
Administrative Code, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 3344. Inasmuch
as the Court of First Instance of Manila had issued a writ of execution
of the judgment in the above-stated civil case, said provincial sheriff
of Nueva Ecija, on March 20, 1933, sold at public auction the attached
properties of said defendants Pedro Goco and Rosa Borja, among them the
above-mentioned lot No. 1322, to the therein plaintiff and herein
applicant-appellant Cheng Siong Lam & Co., for having been the
highest bidder.

On April 13, 1934, the above-stated
provincial sheriff of Nueva Ecija issued in favor of Cheng Siong Lam
& Co. the final certificate of sale which was also registered in
the registry of deeds of Nueva Ecija, in accordance with Act No. 3344.

On November 23, 1934, the appellant Cheng Siong Lam & Co. filed a
motion praying for the cancellation of original certificate of title
No. 18017 covering lot No. 1322, and the issuance in its place of a
transfer certificate of title in its favor, by virtue of the
preliminary attachment levied by it on the lot in question (Appendix
A), and of the final certificate of sale of said lot (Appendix B).

Teodoro R. Yangco opposed said motion on the ground that the property
in question was levied on October 6, 1932, by virtue of a writ of
execution of judgment issued in civil case No. 42026, and that, after
due publication, the property in question was sold at public auction on
December 2, 1932, to said Teodoro R. Yangco, who was the highest
bidder, both the writ of execution in question and the sale at public
auction made by virtue of said writ, having been noted on the original
certificate of title No. 18017 covering lot No. 1322.

The
only question to be decided in the present appeal is whether or not the
writ of preliminary attachment issued in a civil case in favor of the
applicant-appellant Cheng Siong Lam & Co. and against the
defendants Pedro Goco and Rosa Borja, which was recorded only in the
registry of deeds affecting unregistered real estate, in accordance
with the provisions of section 194 of the Administrative Code, as
amended by section 1 of Act No. 3344, but not noted on the
corresponding original certificate of Torrens title, enjoys preference
over a writ of execution of judgment, issued in another case in favor
of another plaintiff and against the same defendants, which was noted
on said original certificate of Torrens title.

Section 429
of Act No. 190, known as the Code of Civil Procedure, provides that:
“Real property, standing upon the records in the name of the defendant
or not appearing at all upon the record, shall be attached by filing
with the registrar of titles of land, for the province in which the
land is situated, a copy of the order of attachment, together with a
description of the property attached, and a notice that it is attached.”

Section 71 of Act No. 496 provides that: “In every case where a writing
of any description or a copy of any writ is required by law to be filed
or recorded in the registry of deeds in order to create or preserve any
lien, right, or attachment upon unregistered land, such writing or copy
when intended to affect registered land, in lieu of recording, shall be
filed and registered in the office of the register of deeds for the
province in which the land lies.”

Section 51 of said Act No.
496 provides that: “Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien,
attachment, order, decree, instrument, or entry affecting registered
land which would under existing laws, if recorded, filed, or entered in
the office of the register of deeds, affect the real estate to which it
relates shall, if registered, filed, or entered in the office of the
register of deeds in the province or city where the real estate to
which such instrument relates lies, be notice to all persons from the
time of such registering, filing, or entering.”

Under the
provisions of the above-quoted section 71, the preliminary attachment
levied by the plaintiff Cheng Siong Lam & Co. on lot No. 1322 under
consideration herein, should have been filed in the office of the
register of deeds of Nueva Ecija and registered in the corresponding
registration book after the issuance of original certificate of title
No. 18017, issued in favor of the defendant spouses Pedro Goco and Rosa
Borja on October 12, 1932, noting it at the back of said original
certificate of Torrens title, which was not done. Under the provisions
of the above-quoted section 51 of Act No. 496, the filing and
registration in the office of the register of deeds of Nueva Ecija of
the writ of execution of judgment issued in favor of the oppositor
Teodoro R. Yangco and of the sale at public auction of lot No. 1322,
and the notation of said writ of execution as well as of said sale at
the back of original certificate of Torrens title No. 18017,
constituted notice to the whole world, including the herein
applicant-appellant Cheng Siong Lam & Co., of the issuance of the
aforesaid writ of execution and of the sale. Finally, under the
provisions of section 39 of Act No. 496, said certificate of title is
free of all incumbrance except those noted thereon and those declared
by said section as subsisting, among which the preliminary attachment
does not appear. As the writ of preliminary attachment, issued in favor
of the applicant Cheng Siong Lam & Co. and levied on lot No. 1322
described in the certificate of title in question, is not noted at the
back of said certificate, it has not affected the lot in question in
his favor. On the contrary, the notation at the back of said
certificate of title of the writ of execution of the judgment, issued
in favor of the oppositor Teodoro R. Yangco, and of the sale at public
auction made by virtue of said writ, affected the lot in question in
favor of the above-named oppositor, giving him a preferred right to
said lot (William H. Anderson & Co. vs. Garcia, 35 Off. Gaz., 2847).

In view of the foregoing considerations, this court is of the opinion
and so holds, that the recording of a preliminary attachment and of the
notice of compliance therewith under the provisions of section 194 of
the Revised Administrative Code, as amended first by Act No. 2837 and
later by Act No. 3344, produced no legal effect whatsoever on the
attached lot, for failure to file and register said writ of attachment
in the office of the register of deeds and to note the same at the back
of original certificate of Torrens title No. 18017, and enjoys no
preference over the writ of execution of judgment, filed and registered
in said office of the register of deeds and noted at the back of the
aforesaid original certificate of title.

Wherefore, not finding any error in the appealed judgment, it is affirmed in toto, with the costs to the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.