CASE DIGEST
Lim vs Lazaro
FACTS:
1. Lim, Jr. filed a complaint for sum of money with
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment before the RTC, seeking to recover from
respondents-spouses Tito S. Lazaro and Carmen T.
Lazaro the sum of P2,160,000.00, which
represented the amounts stated in several
dishonored checks issued by the latter to the former,
as well as interests, attorney’s fees, and costs.
2. RTC granted the writ of preliminary attachment
application and upon the posting of the required
P2,160,000.00 bond, issued the corresponding writ
on October 14, 2005.
3. Three (3) parcels of land situated in Bulacan,
registered in the names of Sps. Lazaro, were levied
upon.
4. However, subsequently, the parties entered into a
Compromise Agreement whereby Sps. Lazaro
agreed to pay Lim, Jr. the amount of P2,351,064.80
on an installment basis.
5. The aforesaid compromise agreement was
approved by the RTC.
6. Subsequently, Sps. Lazaro filed an Omnibus
Motion, seeking to lift the writ of preliminary
attachment annotated on the subject TCTs, which
the RTC granted on March 29, 2007.
7. Lim, Jr. filed a motion for reconsideration which was,
however, denied on July 26, 2007, prompting him to
file a petition for certiorari before the CA.
8. The CA rendered a decision finding no grave of
abuse of discretion on the RTC’s part. Hence, this
petition.
Issue: WON the writ of attachment was validly lifted?
.
HELD: NO.
A writ of attachment is not extinguished by the execution
of a compromise agreement.
By its nature, preliminary attachment, under Rule 57 of the
Rules of Court (Rule 57), is an ancillary remedy applied for not
for its own sake but to enable the attaching party to realize
upon the relief sought and expected to be granted in the main
or principal action; it is a measure auxiliary or incidental to the
main action; it is a measure auxiliary or incidental to the main
action. As such, it is available during its pendency which may
be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain
rights and interests during the interim, awaiting the ultimate
effects of a final judgment in the case.
In this relation, while the provisions of Rule 57 are silent on the
length of time within which an attachment lien shall continue
to subsist after the rendition of a final judgment, jurisprudence
dictates that the said lien continues until the debt is paid, or
the sale is had under execution issued on the judgment
or until the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment
discharged or vacated in the same manner provided by
law.28
Applying these principles, the Court finds that the discharge of
the writ of preliminary attachment against the properties of
Sps. Lazaro was improper.
Records indicate that while the parties have entered into a
compromise agreement which had already been approved by
the RTC in its January 5, 2007 Amended Decision, the
obligations thereunder have yet to be fully complied with –
particularly, the payment of the total compromise amount of
P2,351,064.80. Hence, given that the foregoing debt remains
unpaid, the attachment of Sps. Lazaro’s properties should
have continued to subsist.
Ligon vs RTC of Makati
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Leticia P. Ligon (Ligon) filed an amended
complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City for collection of sum of money and damages,
rescission of contract, and nullification of title with
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment, against Sps. Baladjay, a certain Olivia
Marasigan (Marasigan), Polished Arrow Holdings,
Inc. (Polished Arrow), and its incorporators.
2. Ligon sought to attach the property of Sps. Baladjay
which she claims was fraudulently transferred to
Polish Arrows.
3. The writ of attachment was subsequently granted by
the RTC and the TCT No. 9273 (in the name of
Polish Arrows) was annotated on December 2002.
4. The case was rendered in favor of Ligon and
became final and executory. When Ligon sought for
its execution, she found out that the December 2002
annotation was deleted from the TCT when the
property was sold in a public auction in favor of Ting.
5. The register of deeds did not carry over the
annotations in TCT 9273 (which were in the name of
Polish Arrows), when they were ordered to cancel it
by the Makati RTC, to TCT 8502 (in the name of
Baladjay), Thus, the TCT issued to Ting was clean.
6. Thus this petition for certiorari against the RD, and
the Makati RTC. CA denied the petition.
ISSUE:
WON the Makati RTC exercised grave abuse of discretion
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 registration 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.
As provided under PD 1529, said registration operates as a
form of constructive notice to all persons.
Applying these principles to this case, the Court finds that the
CA erred in holding that the RTC did not gravely abuse its
discretion in issuing the Assailed Orders as these issuances
essentially disregarded, inter alia, Ligon’s prior attachment lien
over the subject property patently anathema to the nature of
attachment proceedings which is well–established in law and
jurisprudence.44 In this case, Ligon, in order to secure the
satisfaction of a favorable judgment in the Quezon City Case,
applied for and was eventually able to secure a writ of
preliminary attachment45 over the subject property on
November 25, 2002, which was later annotated on the dorsal
portion46 of TCT No. 9273 in the name of Polished Arrow on
December 3, 2002. 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.