Last 3 Sale Digest

7/23/2019 Last 3 Sale Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/last-3-sale-digest 1/5

BINAN STEEL CORP VS CA

FACTS:

Bian Steel Corporation (BSC) filed a complaint against Joenas

Metal Corporation and spouses Ng Ley Huat and Leticia Dy Ng

(the spouses Ng) for collection of a sum of money with

damages

!he trial court" issued a #rit of $reliminary %ttachment after

BSC filed an attachment &ond $ursuant thereto' the sheriff

Manuelito $ iloria' leied on the property registered in the

names of the spouses Ng and coered &y !C! No **+,- of

the .egistry of Deeds !his property under preliminary

attachment was in fact mortgaged to the /ar 0ast Ban1 and

!rust Company (/0B!C)' now Ban1 of the $hilippine 2slands

(B$2)

2n the meantime' defendant3spouses Ng sold the property to

petitioners and Myla 4arcia &y means of a deed of sale Said

transaction was registered only a&out a month3and3a3half later'after the mortgagee /0B!C gae its approal to the sale !C!

No **+,- in the name of the spouses Ng was cancelled and'

in lieu thereof' !C! No *56778 in the names of Mylene and

Myla 4arcia was issued

!he 4arcias filed a complaint3in3interention alleging that they

were the registered owners of the property coered &y !C! No

*56778 which was the su&9ect of BSCs writ of preliminary

attachment Said complaint3in3interention was denied &y the

trial court for lac1 of merit

!he trial court rendered 9udgment &y default in faor of BSC %

Notice of Sale of 0:ecution on .eal $roperty was issued &y

respondent sheriff .ufo J Bernardo 2t scheduled the pu&lic

auction of the property

% year after the pu&lic auction' &efore this Court an urgent ex-

parte motion for the issuance of an order maintaining

the status quo ante !hey wanted to preent the consolidation

of the title and possession &y BSC until such time as the rights

and interests of &oth shall hae &een determined and resoled

ISSUES:

(*) who' &etween BSC and the 4arcias' has a &etter

right to the disputed property

RULING:

#e rule therefore that the e:ecution sale in faor of BSC was

superior to the sale of the same property &y the Ngs to the

4arcias

#hen the 4arcias &ought the property' it was' at tha

point' no more than a priate transaction &etween them and

the Ngs 2t needed to &e registered &efore it could &ecome

&inding on all third parties' including BSC. 2t turned out that the

4arcias registered it only' after /0B!C (now B$2) approed the

sale 2t was too late &y then &ecause' the ley in faor of BSC

pursuant to the preliminary attachment' had already &een

annotated on the original title on file with the .egistry o

Deeds !his registration of ley (or notice' in laymanslanguage) now &ecame &inding on the whole world' including

the 4arcias !he rights which had already accrued in faor of

BSC &y irtue of the ley on attachment oer the property were

neer adersely affected &y the unregistered transfer from the

spouses Ng to the 4arcias

Pertinent to the matter at hand is Article 1544 of the

New Civil Code which provides:

If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, x x

x should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to

the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the

Registry of Property. x x x

Because of the principle of constructie notice to the

whole world' one who deals with registered property which is

the su&9ect of an annotated ley on attachment cannot ino1e

the rights of a purchaser in good faith %s &etween two

purchasers' the one who registers the sale in his faor has a

preferred right oer the other who has not registered his title

een if the latter is in actual possession of the immoa&le

property %nd' as &etween two purchasers who &oth registered

the respectie sales in their faor' the one who registered his

sale ahead of the other would hae &etter rights than the other

who registered later

%pplying said proision of the law and settled

9urisprudence to the instant case' when the disputed property

was conse;uently sold on e:ecution to BSC' this auction sale

retroacted to the date of inscription of BSC<s notice o

attachment !he earlier registration thus gae BSC superio

and preferential rights oer the attached property as against

the 4arcias who registered their purchase of the property at a

later date Nota&ly' the 4arcias were not purchasers for alue

in iew of the fact that they ac;uired the property in payment o

the loan earlier o&tained from them &y the Spouses Ng

All told, the purchaser of a property subject to an

attachment legally and validly levied thereon is merely

subrogated to the rights of the vendor and acquires the

property subject to the rights of the attachment creditor. An

attaching creditor who registers the order of attachment and

the sale by public auction of the property to him as the highest

bidder acquires a superior title to the property as against a

vendee who previously bought the same property from the

registered owner but who failed to register his deed of sale.

$etitioners 4arcias failed to show that BSC acted in &ad

faith which would hae impelled this Court to rule otherwise



LAO VS CA

FACTS:

$riate .espondent Better Homes .ealty and Housing

Corporation anchored its right in the e9ectment suit on a

contract of sale in which petitioner (through their family

corporation) transferred the title of the property in ;uestion

$etitioner contends' howeer that their transaction was not an

a&solute sale' &ut an e;uita&le mortgage

ISSUE:

• #hether or not priate respondent had ac;uired

ownership oer the property in ;uestion

• #hether or not petitioner should &e e9ected from the

premises in ;uestion

RULING:

Absolute Sale or Equitable ortgage!

Based on the conduct of the petitioner and priate responden

and een the terminology of the second option to purchase' we

rule that the intent and agreement &etween them was

undou&tedly one of e;uita&le mortgage and not of sale

!he eidence of record indicates that the parties< rea

transaction or contract oer the su&9ect property was not one o

sale &ut' rather' one of loan secured' &y a mortgage thereon is

unaoida&ly inferra&le from the following facts of record' to

(herein petitioner<s) possession of the su&9ect property' whichstarted in *5-= yet' continued and remained een after the

alleged sale> (herein priate respondent) e:ecuted an option to

purchase in faor (herein petitioner) as early as two days

&efore (herein priate respondent) supposedly ac;uired

ownership of the property> the said option was renewed

seeral times and the price was increased with each renewal)

and' the Deed of %&solute Sale of %pril 6' *5,, was registered

and the property transferred in the name of (priate

respondent) only on May *?' *5,5' 2ndeed' if it were true' as i

would hae the Court &eliee' that (priate respondent) was so

appreciatie of (petitioner<s) alleged facilitation of the su&9ec

property<s sale to it' it is ;uite strange why (priate respondent

some two days &efore such supposed sale would hae &eenminded and inclined to e:ecute an option to purchase allowing

(petitioner) to ac;uire the property @ the ery same property i

was still hoping to ac;uire at the time Certainly' what is more

li1ely and thus credi&le is that' if (priate respondent) was

indeed than1ful that it was a&le to purchase the property' it

would not gien (petitioner) any option to purchase at all

Should "etitioner #e Ejected!

#e answer in the negatie %n action for unlawful detainer is

grounded on Section *' .ule -? of the .ules of Court which

proides thatA

a landlord' endor' endee' or othe

person against whom the possession of any

land or &uilding is unlawfully withheld afte

the e:piration or termination of the right to

hold possession' &y irtue of any contract

e:press or implied' or the lega

representaties or assigns of any such

landlord' endor' endee' or other person

may' at any time within one (*) year afte

such unlawful depriation or withholding o

possession' &ring an action in the prope

inferior court against the person or personsunlawfully withholding or depriing o

possession' or any person or persons

claiming under them' for the restitution o

such possession' together with damages

and costs

Based on the preious discussion' there was no sale of the

disputed property Hence' it still &elongs to petitioner<s family

corporation' N Domingo .ealty Deelopment Corporation

$riate respondent' &eing a mere mortgagee' has no right to

e9ect petitioner $riate respondent' as a creditor and



mortgagee' cannot appropriate the things gien &y way of

pledge or mortgage' or dispose of them %ny stipulation to the

contrary is null and oid

Last 3 Sale Digest

Documents

Transcript of Last 3 Sale Digest