Petitioner Jerome Solco filed with the RTC of Quezon City against respondents DAE Sugar Milling Corporation, Azucar Management and Development Corporation, Eduardo L. Lopingco, Teody Lopingco and Rosita Lopingco, claiming that the sugar quedans he had purchased turned out to be worthless.
Eespondent Eduardo Lopingco agreed that his personal properties under attachment shall remain attached; and that in the event of default, respondent also agreed that his attached properties could be sold to satisfy all amounts still due from him. He, however, failed to comply with the terms of the compromise agreement entered into, so that petitioner Solco filed with the trial court a motion for “the issuance of a writ of execution against respondent Eduardo R. Lopingco,
The trial court issued the writ of as prayed for by virtue of which the court’s branch sheriff levied upon and/or garnished certain personal property belonging to respondent Lopingco as well as respondents AZUCAR and DASUMICO; and certain real property belonging to respondents Eduardo Lopingco and Rosita Lopingco, and AZUCAR and DASUMICO, in partial satisfaction of the court’s judgment in the case.
The trial court issued a Notice of Levy on Execution including property of Talisay-Silay and Ma-ao which were not parties to the case. Talisay-Silay learned of the annotation only when it secured a xerox copy of its title from the Register of Deeds. The owner’s duplicate copy of the title does not bear such inscription.
As Talisay-Silay was not a party to the case, on October 22, 1992, it filed a third party claim and, on December 23, 1992, a motion for cancellation of entry No. 350179 on TCT No. 115609, asking the trial court to lift the levy thereon.
Is the levy upon Talisay-Silay’s property valid?
NO. Talisay-Silay’s right of ownership is evidenced by its certificate of title. In Demasiado vs. Velasco, the SC sustained the indefeasibility and conclusiveness of a torrens title, ruling that: “Under Section 47 of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496), the certificate of title covering registered land shall be received as evidence in all courts of the Philippines, and shall be conclusive as to all matters contained therein (principally, the identity of the owner of the land covered thereby).”
Even if it be assumed that Dae Sugar and Azucar were mere alter egos of respondent Eduardo Lopingco, this will only result in the validation of the compromise agreement executed between Jerome Solco and Eduardo R. Lopingco. Nonetheless, the levy and sale on execution of property other than those owned by Eduardo R. Lopingco remain void. Thus, the levy on, and sale, of the property covered by TCT No. 115609, which belongs to and registered in the name of Talisay-Silay cannot be validated.
AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS
Investo, Inc. sold six (6) parcels of land to Solid Homes payable in installments. Solid Homes was not able to comply with the payment as prescribed in the contract between the parties. Thus, Investo, Inc. and its predecessors-in-interest filed an action for specific performance and damages against Solid Homes, Inc.
Along with its answer, Solid Homes also filed with the Register of Deeds of Marikina a notice of lis pendens. The notice of lis pendens was recorded on the Primary Entry Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Marikina, Metro Manila. However, the notice of lis pendens was not actually annotated on the titles in the name of Investco, Inc.
In the meantime, Investco, Inc. offered to sell the property to AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. The former furnished AFP MBAI with certified true copies of the titles covering the Marikina property. AFP MBAI verified the titles with the Register of Deeds of Marikina, Metro Manila and found that copies of the titles that Investco, Inc. gave were genuine and faithful reproductions of the...