Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 132 views

    Ligon v. RTC

    Uploaded by

    YR
    1) Petitioner Leticia P. Ligon secured a writ of preliminary attachment over a property in 2002 to secure a favorable judgment in another case. 2) In 2004, the Regional Trial Court rescinded the transfer of the property, finding it was made in fraud of creditors. 3) However, the petitioner's attachment lien over the property continued to subsist, as an attachment binds the property itself until the judgment debt is satisfied. 4) The Court of Appeals erred in ruling the Regional Trial Court did not gravely abuse its discretion by issuing orders directing the issuance of a new title to the property free from any liens, as this disregarded the petitioner's prior attachment lien over

    Copyright:

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

    Ligon v. RTC

    Uploaded by

    YR
    132 views1 page
    1) Petitioner Leticia P. Ligon secured a writ of preliminary attachment over a property in 2002 to secure a favorable judgment in another case. 2) In 2004, the Regional Trial Court rescinded the transfer of the property, finding it was made in fraud of creditors. 3) However, the petitioner's attachment lien over the property continued to subsist, as an attachment binds the property itself until the judgment debt is satisfied. 4) The Court of Appeals erred in ruling the Regional Trial Court did not gravely abuse its discretion by issuing orders directing the issuance of a new title to the property free from any liens, as this disregarded the petitioner's prior attachment lien over

    Original Description:

    Remedial Law digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner Leticia P. Ligon secured a writ of preliminary attachment over a property in 2002 to secure a favorable judgment in another case. 2) In 2004, the Regional Trial Court rescinded the transfer of the property, finding it was made in fraud of creditors. 3) However, the petitioner's attachment lien over the property continued to subsist, as an attachment binds the property itself until the judgment debt is satisfied. 4) The Court of Appeals erred in ruling the Regional Trial Court did not gravely abuse its discretion by issuing orders directing the issuance of a new title to the property free from any liens, as this disregarded the petitioner's prior attachment lien over

    Copyright:

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

    Ligon v. RTC

    Uploaded by

    YR
    1) Petitioner Leticia P. Ligon secured a writ of preliminary attachment over a property in 2002 to secure a favorable judgment in another case. 2) In 2004, the Regional Trial Court rescinded the transfer of the property, finding it was made in fraud of creditors. 3) However, the petitioner's attachment lien over the property continued to subsist, as an attachment binds the property itself until the judgment debt is satisfied. 4) The Court of Appeals erred in ruling the Regional Trial Court did not gravely abuse its discretion by issuing orders directing the issuance of a new title to the property free from any liens, as this disregarded the petitioner's prior attachment lien over

    Copyright:

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

    54) LETICIA P. LIGON v.

    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

    G.R. No. 190028, February 26, 2014

    Facts:
    Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision dated of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
    CA–G.R. SP No. 106175 wherein it disregarded the prior lien of Petitioner and found no grave abuse of
    discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 56 (Makati City RTC) in issuing the
    following orders (Assailed Orders) in Civil Case No. 03–186:
    (a) the Order3 dated February 9, 2007 which directed the Register of Deeds of Muntinlupa City,
    respondent Atty. Silverio Garing (Atty. Garing), to (1) register the Officer’s Final Deed of Sale issued by
    respondent Sheriff Lucito V. Alejo (Sheriff Alejo) on October 27, 2006 in favor of the highest bidder, respondent
    Leonardo J. Ting (Ting), (2) cancel Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 8502/T44 in the name of Spouses
    Rosario and Saturnino Baladjay (Sps. Baladjay), and (3) issue a new certificate of title in favor of Ting, free
    from any liens and encumbrances;
    (b) the Order4 dated March 20, 2007 which directed Atty. Garing to comply with the February 9, 2007
    Order under pain of contempt of court; and
    (c) the Order5 dated April 25, 2007 which reiterated the directive to Atty. Garing to issue a new title in favor
    of Ting after the latter’s payment of capital gains, documentary and transfer taxes, as required.

    Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the Makati City RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in
    issuing the Writ of Attachment

    Ruling:
    Yes. Attachment is defined as a provisional remedy by which the property of an adverse party is taken
    into legal custody, either at the commencement of an action or at any time thereafter, as a security for the
    satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or any proper party. 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. 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 attachment 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. 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 free from any liens and
    encumbrances.

    You might also like