Ligon vs RTC Makati City

G.R. No. 190028 February 26, 2014

LETICIA P. LIGON, Petitioner,
vs.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56 AT MAKATI CITY AND ITS PRESIDING JUDGE,
JUDGE REYNALDO M. LAIGO, SHERIFF IV LUCITO V. ALEJO, ATTY. SILVERIO GARING, MR.
LEONARDO J. TING, AND MR. BENITO G. TECHICO, Respondents.

FACTS: Petitioner Ligon filed before the QC RTC a complaint for the collection of a sum of money
with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the Sps. Baladjay, a certain
Olivia Marasigan (Marasigan), Polished Arrow Holdings, Inc. (Polished Arrow), and its incorporators.
The complaint alleges among others that the spouses Baladjay enticed her to extend a short-term
loan secured by a PDC which bounced upon presentment, and that the subject property was
transferred to respondent Polished Arrow allegedly defendants’ dummy corporation to defraud
creditors. The application for the writ was granted so the subject property was levied upon by
annotating the writ on the dorsal portion of TCT No. 9273.
While the case was pending, a similar complaint for the sum of money damages, and cancellation of
title with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment was lodged before the RTC Makati
by the Sps Vicente against the same respondents. During the proceedings therein, a writ of
preliminary attachment also against the subject property was issued and annotated on the dorsal
portion of TCT No. 9273.

While the case is still pending in QC, the Makati RTC rendered a decision rescinding the transfer of
the subject property to Polished Arrow upon a finding that the same was made in fraud of creditors.
Consequently, the Makati City RTC directed the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City to: (a) cancel
TCT No. 9273 in the name of Polished Arrow; and (b) restore TCT No. 8502 “in its previous
condition” in the name of Rosario Baladjay. In the subsequent execution proceedings, the property
was sold at a public auction to respondent Ting.

The RTC Makati then ordered the RD under pain of contempt to issue a new certificate in favor of
Ting free from any liens and encumbrances.
Meanwhile the QC RTC ruled in favor of Ligon who sought its execution and discovered the earlier
attachment annotation in her favor has been deleted.
ISSUE: W/N the Makati RTC gravely abused its discretion when it ordered the deletion of Ligon’s
attachment lien
HELD: YES. Case law instructs that an attachment is a proceeding in rem, and, hence, is against
the particular property, enforceable against the whole world. Accordingly, the attaching creditor
acquires a specific lien on the attached property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the
very dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the property
attached is an indebted thing and a virtual condemnation of it to pay the owner’s debt. The lien
continues until the debt is paid, or sale is had under execution issued on the judgment, or until the
judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in some manner provided by law.
Thus, a prior registration40 of an attachment lien creates a preference, such that when an
attachment has been duly levied upon a property, a purchaser thereof subsequent to the attachment
takes the property subject to the said attachment.42 As provided under PD 1529, said registration
operates as a form of constructive notice to all.
Notwithstanding the subsequent cancellation of TCT No. 9273 due to the Makati City RTC’s
December 9, 2004 Decision rescinding the transfer of the subject property from Sps. Baladjay to
Polished Arrow upon a finding that the same was made in fraud of creditors, Ligon’s attachment lien
over the subject property continued to subsist since the attachment she had earlier secured binds
the property itself, and, hence, continues until the judgment debt of Sps. Baladjay to Ligon as
adjudged in the Quezon City Case is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or vacated in some
manner provided by law. The grave abuse of discretion of the Makati City RTC lies with its directive
to issue a new certificate of title in the name of Ting (i.e., TCT No. 19756),47 free from any liens and
encumbrances. This course of action clearly negates the efficacy of Ligon’s attachment lien and,
also, defies the legal characterization of attachment proceedings. It bears noting that Ligon’s claim,
secured by the aforesaid attachment, is against Sps. Baladjay whose ownership over the subject
property had been effectively restored in view of the RTC’s rescission of the property’s previous sale
to Polished Arrow.48Thus, Sps. Ligon’s attachment lien against Sps. Baladjay as well as their
successors-in-interest should have been preserved, and the annotation thereof carried over to any
subsequent certificate of title,49 the most recent of which as it appears on record is TCT No. 31001
in the name of Techico, without prejudice to the latter’s right to protect his own ownership interest
over the subject property.
TORRES V SATSATIN
FEB
GR 166759 | November 25, 2009 | J. Peralta
(A) belated service of summons on respondents cannot be deemed to have cured the
fatal defect in the enforcement of the writ. The trial court cannot enforce such a
coercive process on respondents without first obtaining jurisdiction over their
person. The preliminary writ of attachment must be served after or simultaneous
with the service of summons on the defendant whether by personal service,
substituted service or by publication as warranted by the circumstances of the case.

Facts:

Siblings Torres (petitioners) each owned adjacent 20,000 square meters track of land in
Dasmariñas, Cavite. Nicanor Satsatin, through petitioners’ mother Agripina Aledia, was able to
convince the siblings to sell their property and authorize him via SPA, to negotiate for its sale.
Nicanor offered to sell the properties to Solar Resources, to which Solar allegedly agreed to buy the
three parcels of land plus the property of one Rustica Aledia for P35, 000,000. Petitioners claimed
that Solar has already paid the entire purchase price, however Nicanor only remitted P9, 000,000
out of the P28, 000,000 sum they are entitled to and that Nicanor had acquired a house and lot and
a car (which he registered in the names of his children). Despite the repeated verbal and written
demands, Nicanor failed to remit the balance prompting the petitioners to file a complaint for sum of
money against the family Satsatin.

Petitioners filed an Ex Parte Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Attachment, alleging among other
things, that respondent was about to depart the country and that they are willing to post a bond fixed
by court. After filing a Motion for Deputation of Sheriff, which the RTC granted, it issued a Writ of
Attachment (WOA) on November 15. On November 19, after serving a copy of the WOA upon the
Satsatins, the sheriff levied their real and personal properties. On November 21, the summons and
copy of complaint was served upon the respondents. Respondents filed their answer and a Motion to
Discharge Writ of Attachment, claiming, among others, that: the bond was issued before the issuance
of WOA, the WOA was issued before the summons was received. Respondents posted a counter-bond
for the lifting of WOA, which was denied along with MR. Aggrieved, they filed with CA a Petition for
Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and TRO under Rule 65. CA
ruled in favor of respondents and denied petitioners’ MR hence the petition for review on certiorari
with the SC.

Issue:
W/N CA erred in finding that RTC was guilty of GADALEJ in the issuance and implementation of the
WOA

Held:
No. A writ of preliminary attachment is defined as a provisional remedy issued upon order of the
court where an action is pending to be levied upon the property or properties of the defendant
therein, the same to be held thereafter by the sheriff as security for the satisfaction of whatever
judgment that might be secured in the said action by the attaching creditor against the defendant.
In the case at bar, the CA correctly found that there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in approving the bond posted by
petitioners despite the fact that not all the requisites for its approval were complied with. In
accepting a surety bond, it is necessary that all the requisites for its approval are met; otherwise, the
bond should be rejected.

Moreover, in provisional remedies, particularly that of preliminary attachment, the distinction

between the issuance and the implementation of the writ of attachment is of utmost importance to
the validity of the writ. The distinction is indispensably necessary to determine when jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant should be acquired in order to validly implement the writ of
attachment upon his person.

In Cuartero v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that the grant of the provisional remedy of
attachment involves three stages: first, the court issues the order granting the application; second,
the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and third, the writ is
implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant be first obtained. However, once the implementation of the writ commences, the court
must have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, for without such jurisdiction, the court has no
power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court
will not bind the defendant.
At the time the trial court issued the writ of attachment on November 15, 2002, it can validly to do so
since the motion for its issuance can be filed “at the commencement of the action or at any time
before entry of judgment.” However, at the time the writ was implemented, the trial court has not
acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the respondent since no summons was yet served upon
them. The proper officer should have previously or simultaneously with the implementation of the
writ of attachment, served a copy of the summons upon the respondents in order for the trial court to
have acquired jurisdiction upon them and for the writ to have binding effect. Consequently, even if
the writ of attachment was validly issued, it was improperly or irregularly enforced and, therefore,
cannot bind and affect the respondents.

Moreover, again assuming arguendo that the writ of attachment was validly issued, although the trial
court later acquired jurisdiction over the respondents by service of the summons upon them, such
belated service of summons on respondents cannot be deemed to have cured the fatal
defect in the enforcement of the writ. The trial court cannot enforce such a coercive
process on respondents without first obtaining jurisdiction over their person. The
preliminary writ of attachment must be served after or simultaneous with the service
of summons on the defendant whether by personal service, substituted service or by
publication as warranted by the circumstances of the case. The subsequent service of
summons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction