You are on page 1of 2


May 29, 1987 (150 SCRA 591)
Solidbank loaned NICOS P4,076,518.64. A collection case
was filed. As a result of a writ of attachment, 2 real
properties of defendant were levied and attached. These
same properties were extrajudicially foreclosed by UCPB
where properties have been mortgaged previously. UCPB
sold its rights and interests over the properties to Manuel Go
who also sold the same to GOLDEN STAR (private
respondent). NICOS executed waiver of right of redemption
in favor of Golden Star. Court granted writ of possession
filed by Golden Star. Solidbank filed omnibus motion to
annul the writ of possession which was denied. Solidbank
filed appeal before IAC on the ground that the properties
were under custodia legis. IAC affirmed in toto order of the
Malolos court.
Whether or not an attaching creditor acquires the right of
redemption of a debtor over the attached properties of the
latter which are subsequently extrajudicially foreclosed by
third parties.
WON the subject properties were under custodia legis by
virtue of the prior annotation of a writ of attachment in
petitioner’s favor at the time the properties were
extrajudicially foreclosed.

the levy thus effected creates a lien which nothing can destroy but its dissolution. Necessary consequence: The writ of possession in favor of Golden Star is null and void ab initio because it interfered with the jurisdiction of a co-ordinate and co-equal court. . Based on the evidence.HELD: YES. conclusion is clear that the disputed real properties were under custodia legis by virtue of a valid attachment at the time the same were extrajudicially foreclosed by a third party mortgagee. The rule is well-settled that when a writ of attachment has been levied on real property or any interest therein belonging to the judgment debtor.