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