Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 123 views

    Sps Bulaong vs. Gonzales 3

    Uploaded by

    Jezza
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners in a case involving a property dispute over two lots. [1] The petitioners had mortgaged the two lots from Regina Limpo, believing the titles to be clean based on assurances from the Register of Deeds. [2] However, a notice of levy against Regina over a prior judgment had been recorded but not annotated on the titles. [3] The Court ruled the levy and subsequent sale of the properties to the respondent were invalid since Regina had no registered interest in the properties at the time of the levy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sps Bulaong vs. Gonzales 3

    Uploaded by

    Jezza
    123 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners in a case involving a property dispute over two lots. [1] The petitioners had mortgaged the two lots from Regina Limpo, believing the titles to be clean based on assurances from the Register of Deeds. [2] However, a notice of levy against Regina over a prior judgment had been recorded but not annotated on the titles. [3] The Court ruled the levy and subsequent sale of the properties to the respondent were invalid since Regina had no registered interest in the properties at the time of the levy.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners in a case involving a property dispute over two lots. [1] The petitioners had mortgaged the two lots from Regina Limpo, believing the titles to be clean based on assurances from the Register of Deeds. [2] However, a notice of levy against Regina over a prior judgment had been recorded but not annotated on the titles. [3] The Court ruled the levy and subsequent sale of the properties to the respondent were invalid since Regina had no registered interest in the properties at the time of the levy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    123 views1 page

    Sps Bulaong vs. Gonzales 3

    Uploaded by

    Jezza
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners in a case involving a property dispute over two lots. [1] The petitioners had mortgaged the two lots from Regina Limpo, believing the titles to be clean based on assurances from the Register of Deeds. [2] However, a notice of levy against Regina over a prior judgment had been recorded but not annotated on the titles. [3] The Court ruled the levy and subsequent sale of the properties to the respondent were invalid since Regina had no registered interest in the properties at the time of the levy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    SPOUSES ANSELMO and PRISCILLA BULAONG vs.

    VERONICA GONZALES
    G.R.. No. 156318 September 05, 2011
    Brion, J.:

    Facts:
    • Regina Limpo, representing her parents, mortgaged two lots to petitioners. Prior to
    this, the Register of Deeds (RD) assured petitioners that the titles were “clean”.
    • Prior to the execution of mortgage, a notice of levy to satisfy judgment debt against
    Regina was recorded in the Primary Entry Book of the RD in January 1993. It was
    not annotated on the titles since the same are registered under Regina’s parents.
    • Petitioners went to the RD to register and annotate the mortgage on the titles. They
    were informed therein that the titles were burned in a fire accident. Petitioners then
    caused the reconstitution of the titles, and newly reconstituted titles were issued.
    • New titles were issued with Regina and her brother as registered owners through
    an extrajudicial settlement of their parents’ estate in February 1993. The petitioners
    learned of the levy on the titles and Regina’s interest in the properties being
    anchored on an unregistered Deed of Absolute Sale to Regina as vendee in 1991.
    • The lots were sold to the respondent at a public auction. The petitioners also
    extrajudicially foreclosed the properties and acquired the same in an auction sale.
    • The RD issued “clean” TCTs in respondent’s name. Petitioners filed for the
    cancellation of titles in respondent’s name and issuance of new titles in their name.
    • RTC ruled for petitioners but the CA ruled for the respondent. Hence, this petition.

    Issue: Whether the levy and the execution sale in respondent’s favor are valid.

    Ruling: No.

    The properties subject of the attachment are not registered in Regina’s name
    and the Deed of Absolute Sale on which Regina based her interest was not annotated
    on these titles. The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the
    land insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all cases under this Decree (PD
    1529), the registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the
    province or city where the land lies. If a sale is not registered, it is binding only between
    the seller and the buyer, but it does not affect innocent third persons. The subject
    properties were registered in Regina’s name by succession only when an Adjudication
    was filed with the RD in February 1993. Regina has no interest in the properties at the
    time of the levy (January 1993), thus, the respondent’s levy has nothing to attach to.

    Where the property to be sold consists of distinct lots, tracts or parcels, or is


    susceptible of division without injury, it should be offered for sale in parcels and not en
    masse, for the reason that a sale in that manner will generally realize the best price,
    and will not result in taking from the debtor any more property than is necessary to
    satisfy the judgment. It will also enable the defendant to redeem any one or more of
    the parcels without being compelled to redeem all the land sold. A sale of additional
    land or personal property after enough has been sold to satisfy the judgment is
    unauthorized. Where the properties were sold together when the sale of less than the
    whole would have been sufficient to satisfy the judgment debt, the sale may be set
    aside. The sale of just one of the lots would have been sufficient to satisfy the judgment
    debt. This undoubtedly prejudiced the Bulaongs. This renders the execution sale
    defective, thus, the sale is set aside.

    You might also like