8/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 700

G.R. No. 185734.  July 3, 2013.*

ALFREDO C. LIM, JR., petitioner, vs. SPOUSES TITO S.

LAZARO and CARMEN T. LAZARO, respondents.

Remedial Law; Provisional Remedies; Attachment; Preliminary

Attachment; 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.—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. 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
addition, attachment is also availed of in order to acquire jurisdiction over
the action by actual or constructive seizure of the property in those instances
where personal or substituted service of summons on the defendant cannot
be effected.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
  Jose S. Santos, Jr. for petitioner.

_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.

548

548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lim, Jr. vs. Lazaro

RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE,  J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the July 10,
2008 Decision2 and December 18, 2008 Resolution3 of the Court of
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b64b1e5308eee285e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/8
8/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 700

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 100270, affirming the March 29,

2007 Order4 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 223
(RTC), which lifted the writ of preliminary attachment issued in
favor of petitioner Alfredo C. Lim, Jr. (Lim, Jr.).
The Facts
On August 22, 2005, Lim, Jr. filed a complaint5  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 (Sps. 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. The RTC granted the writ of
preliminary attachment application6 and upon the posting of the
required P2,160,000.00 bond,7 issued the corresponding writ on
October 14, 2005.8 In this accord, three (3) parcels of land situated
in Bulacan, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT)

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 8-20.
2  Id., at pp. 23-33. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with
Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Vicente S. E. Veloso, concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 35-36.
4 Id., at p. 79. Penned by Presiding Judge Ramon A. Cruz.
5 Id., at pp. 39-43. Docketed as Civil Case No. Q-05-56123.
6 Id., at p. 44. See September 15, 2005 RTC Order.
7 Id., at p. 45. See September 29, 2005 RTC Order.
8 Id., at pp. 46-47. Issued by Atty. Joseph Ronald T. Abesa, Clerk of Court V.

549

VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 549

Lim, Jr. vs. Lazaro

Nos. T-64940, T-64939, and T-86369 (subject TCTs), registered in

the names of Sps. Lazaro, were levied upon.9
In their Answer with Counterclaim,10 Sps. Lazaro averred,
among others, that Lim, Jr. had no cause of action against them
since: (a) Colim Merchandise (Colim), and not Lim, Jr., was the
payee of the fifteen (15) Metrobank checks; and (b) the PNB and
Real Bank checks were not drawn by them, but by Virgilio Arcinas
and Elizabeth Ramos, respectively. While they admit their
indebtedness to Colim, Sps. Lazaro alleged that the same had
already been substantially reduced on account of previous payments
which were apparently misapplied. In this regard, they sought for an
accounting and reconciliation of records to determine the actual
amount due. They likewise argued that no fraud should be imputed
against them as the aforesaid checks issued to Colim were merely
intended as a form of collateral.11 Hinged on the same grounds, Sps.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b64b1e5308eee285e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/8
8/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 700

Lazaro equally opposed the issuance of a writ of preliminary

attachment.12
Nonetheless, on September 22, 2006, the parties entered into a
Compromise Agreement13 whereby Sps. Lazaro agreed to pay Lim,
Jr. the amount of P2,351,064.80 on an installment basis, following a
schedule of payments covering the period from September 2006
until October 2013, under the following terms, among others: (a)
that should the financial condition of Sps. Lazaro improve, the
monthly installments shall be increased in order to hasten the full
payment of the entire obligation;14 and (b) that Sps. Lazaro’s failure
to pay any install-

_______________
9  Id., at pp. 49-50. See October 27, 2005 Sheriff’s return.
10 Id., at pp. 51-55.
11 Id., at p. 52.
12 Id., at pp. 53-54.
13 Id., at pp. 59-62.
14 Id., at p. 61. As stated in the September 22, 2006 Compromise Agreement, the
payment of Sps. Lazaro’s mortgage obligation annotated in the memorandum of
encumbrances of TCT Nos. T-

550

550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lim, Jr. vs. Lazaro

ment due or the dishonor of any of the postdated checks delivered in

payment thereof shall make the whole obligation immediately due
and demandable.
The aforesaid compromise agreement was approved by the RTC
in its October 31, 2006 Decision15  and January 5, 2007 Amended
Decision.16
Subsequently, Sps. Lazaro filed an Omnibus Motion,17 seeking to
lift the writ of preliminary attachment annotated on the subject
TCTs, which the RTC granted on March 29, 2007.18 It ruled that a
writ of preliminary attachment is a mere provisional or ancillary
remedy, resorted to by a litigant to protect and preserve certain rights
and interests pending final judgment. Considering that the case had
already been considered closed and terminated by the rendition of
the January 5, 2007 Amended Decision on the basis of the
September 22, 2006 compromise agreement, the writ of preliminary
attachment should be lifted and quashed. Consequently, it ordered
the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan to cancel the writ’s annotation on
the subject TCTs.
Lim, Jr. filed a motion for reconsideration19 which was, however,
denied on July 26, 2007,220  prompting him to file a petition
for certiorari21 before the CA.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b64b1e5308eee285e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/8
8/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 700

_______________
64940, T-64939, and T-86369 shall be proof of the improvement of their financial
condition.
15 Id., at pp. 63-67.
16 Id., at pp. 69-73.
17 Id., at pp. 74-75.
18 Id., at p. 79.
19 Id., at pp. 80-82.
20 Id., at p. 87. See July 26, 2007 RTC Order.
21 Id., at pp. 88-98.

551

VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 551

Lim, Jr. vs. Lazaro

The CA Ruling
On July 10, 2008, the CA rendered the assailed decision,22
finding no grave abuse of discretion on the RTC’s part. It observed
that a writ of preliminary attachment may only be issued at the
commencement of the action or at any time before entry of
judgment. Thus, since the principal cause of action had already been
declared closed and terminated by the RTC, the provisional or
ancillary remedy of preliminary attachment would have no leg to
stand on, necessitating its discharge.23Aggrieved, Lim, Jr. moved for
reconsideration24  which was likewise denied by the CA in its
December 18, 2008 Resolution.25
Hence, the instant petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the writ of
preliminary attachment was properly lifted.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
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. As such, it is
available during its pendency which may be resorted to by a litigant
to preserve

_______________
22 Id., at pp. 23-33.
23 Id., at pp. 32-33.
24 Id., at pp. 100-110.
25 Id., at pp. 35-36.

552

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b64b1e5308eee285e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/8
8/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 700

552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lim, Jr. vs. Lazaro

and protect certain rights and interests during the interim, awaiting
the ultimate effects of a final judgment in the case.26  In addition,
attachment is also availed of in order to acquire jurisdiction over the
action by actual or constructive seizure of the property in those
instances where personal or substituted service of summons on the
defendant cannot be effected.27
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.

_______________
26 Republic v. Estate of Alfonso Lim, Sr.,  G.R. No. 164800, July 22, 2009, 593
SCRA 404, 416.
27 “The purposes of preliminary attachment are: (1) to seize the property of the
debtor in advance of final judgment and to hold it for purposes of satisfying said
judgment, as in the grounds stated in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Section 1, Rule 57 of the
Rules of Court; or (2) to acquire jurisdiction over the action by actual or constructive
seizure of the property in those instances where personal or substituted service of
summons on the defendant cannot be effected, as in paragraph (f) of the same
provision.” (Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Alejandro, G.R. No.
175587, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 738, 751-752).
28 Chemphil Export & Import Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos.
112438-39 and 113394, December 12, 1995, 251 SCRA 257, 288, citing BF Homes,
Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 76879 and 77143, October 3, 1990, 190
SCRA 262, 271-272. (Emphasis supplied)

553

VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 553

Lim, Jr. vs. Lazaro

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,

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b64b1e5308eee285e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/8
8/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 700

given that the foregoing debt remains unpaid, the attachment of Sps.
Lazaro’s properties should have continued to subsist.
In  Chemphil Export & Import Corporation v. CA,29  the Court
pronounced that a writ of attachment is not extinguished by the
execution of a compromise agreement between the parties, viz.:

Did the compromise agreement between Antonio Garcia and the

consortium discharge the latter’s attachment lien over the disputed
shares?
CEIC argues that a writ of attachment is a mere auxiliary remedy
which, upon the dismissal of the case, dies a natural death. Thus,
when the consortium entered into a compromise agreement, which
resulted in the termination of their case, the disputed shares were
released from garnishment.
We disagree. To subscribe to CEIC’s contentions would be to
totally disregard the concept and purpose of a preliminary
attachment.
x x x x
The case at bench admits of peculiar character in the sense that it
involves a compromise agreement. Nonetheless, x  x  x.  The parties
to the compromise agreement should not be deprived of the
protection provided by an attachment lien especially in an
instance where one reneges on his obligations under the
agreement, as in the case at bench, where Antonio Garcia failed to
hold up his own end of the deal, so to speak.

_______________
29 Id., at pp. 287-290.

554

554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lim, Jr. vs. Lazaro

x x x x
If we were to rule otherwise, we would in effect create a back
door by which a debtor can easily escape his creditors. Consequently,
we would be faced with an anomalous situation where a debtor, in
order to buy time to dispose of his properties, would enter into a
compromise agreement he has no intention of honoring in the first
place. The purpose of the provisional remedy of attachment would
thus be lost. It would become, in analogy, a declawed and toothless
tiger. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)

In fine, the Court holds that the writ of preliminary attachment

subject of this case should be restored and its annotation revived in
the subject TCTs, re-vesting unto Lim, Jr. his preferential lien over
the properties covered by the same as it were before the cancellation
of the said writ. Lest it be misunderstood, the lien or security
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b64b1e5308eee285e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/8
8/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 700

obtained by an attachment even before judgment, is in the nature of

a vested interest which affords specific security for the satisfaction
of the debt put in suit.30  Verily, the lifting of the attachment lien
would be tantamount to an abdication of Lim, Jr.’s rights over Sps.
Lazaro’s properties which the Court, absent any justifiable ground
therefor, cannot allow.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The July 10, 2008
Decision and the December 18, 2008 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100270 are REVERSED

_______________
30 “The lien or security obtained by an attachment even before judgment, is a
fixed and positive security, a specific lien, and, although whether it will ever be made
available to the creditor depends on contingencies, its existence is in no way
contingent, conditioned or inchoate. It is a vested interest, an actual and substantial
security, affording specific security for satisfaction of the debt put in suit, which
constitutes a cloud on the legal title, and is as specific as if created by virtue of a
voluntary act of the debtor and stands upon as high equitable grounds as a mortgage.”
(BF Homes, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, supra note 28, at p. 272; citations
omitted).

555

VOL. 700, JULY 3, 2013 555

Lim, Jr. vs. Lazaro

and SET ASIDE, and the March 29, 2007 Order of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 223 is NULLIFIED.
Accordingly, the trial court is directed to RESTORE the attachment
lien over Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-64940, T-64939, and
T-86369, in favor of petitioner Alfredo C. Lim, Jr.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo and Perez, JJ.,

concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.

Notes.—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. (Torres vs. Satsatin, 605 SCRA 453 [2009])
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) is not permitted to dissolve or
discharge a preliminary attachment or garnishment except on
grounds specifically provided in the Revised Rules of Court. (Bank
of the Philippine Islands vs. Lee, 678 SCRA 171 [2012])
——o0o——

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b64b1e5308eee285e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/8
8/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 700

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b64b1e5308eee285e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/8