G. R. No.

46701
Mauricio Cruz, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
JOSEPHINE SANDOVAL, opposition and appellant.
Jopse BL D. Reyes, and Messrs. Yuseco and Arteche on behalf of the appellant.
Messrs. Clark and Casal for appellee.
IMPERIAL, J .:
In the civil case No. 50516 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled "Luciano
Agustin, applicant, v Manuel Tambunting, claimed," judgment was delivered on 11
November 1936 with Luciano for demning to Tambunting to pay you the sum of
P85,000. To be a final judgment, expidiose writ of execution and the Sheriff but the
property described in the Certificate of Transfer of Title No. 32443, issued to
Tambunting, valued at P35,000. The February 24, 1937 the embargo was notified
to the Registrar of Titles of Manila and the official registration and write down what
the back of the Transfer Certificate Title No. 32443 on February 25, 1937, at 8.59 a.
m. The February 8, 1938 Luciano Agustin transfer all rights and title to the final
judgment and execution that obtained in the civil case No. 50516 for Josephine
Sandoval. The script also was granted did not sign the oficinal recorder. In the civil
case No. 108834 of the Municipal Court of Manila, entitled, "Mauricio Cruz,
applicant, v Manuel Tambunting, defendant," judgment was issued on May 23,
1936 for Cruz Tambunting condemning him to pay the sum P35. Cruz appealed the
case by the Court of First Instance of Manila issued a ruling condemning
Tambunting Cross to pay the amount of P285. By being firm that judgment, writ of
execution and the Sheriff was issued but the farm described in Title Transfer
Certificate No. 32443, issued on behalf of Tambunting. The embargo was notified to
the Registrar of Titles of Manila and what this official registration and scored on the
Transfer Certificate Title No. 32443 on February 25, 1937, at 2.44 p. m. At the
request of the Sheriff Cruz sold at public auction the property on April 15, 1937,
adjudicandolo Cruz, as the best bidder at P458.72. After a period of one year to the
redemption request and Cruz has elapsed, the Court issued an order on May 18,
1938 requiring the Registrar of Titles Manila to cancel the Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 32443 and in its place another issue for Cruz, subject, however, to the
same levies and charges that appeared on the certificate of title transfer.
Consistent with this order, the Registrar canceled this title and issued the
certificate of transfer of Title No. 53732 on behalf of Mauricio Cruz, stating the
back that the property was subject to a mortgage in favor of National Loan &
Investment Board and But under execution for Luciano Agustin.
The June 23, 1938 Cruz filed a petition in the GLR Record No. 2768 Record OR
where the last transfer certificate of title was issued, and requested that the
charges listed on the back of your Certificate of Title Transfer canceled No. 53732.
At the request Josefina Sandoval opposed claiming that he had acquired the rights
of Luciano Agustin in the embargo under execution and that such rights were

superior and preferred to Cruz and for that reason no grounds for cancellation of
the tax annotated for his predecessor. After the hearing, the Court issued an order
on October 17, 1938 stating that Luciano and Sandoval had lost their preference
and ordered the Registrar to cancel the Transfer Certificate Title No. 53732 and
instead issued another for Mauritius Cruz stating only the mortgage lien in favor of
National Loan & Investment Board. Against this order filed appeal Sandoval.
In short the five signs of error appellant only raise the question of whether the
respondent's right to the property is higher than it, but by the respondent although
it occurred under execution obtained after the embargo under Agustin execution
obtained by Luciano, the cause of the appellant. The court stated above and
preferential right appellee for two reasons: first, because the transfer of the rights
of Luciano in favor of the appellant is not registered, and, second, because Luciano
and Sandoval lost their rights to preference by not Sheriff make selling the
property in a public auction to satisfy the judgment that the first obtained. We
declare the right conclusion reached by the Court is erroneous. Regarding the
transfer of rights for Luciano Sandoval, their lack of registration does not protect
the rights of the appellee or becomes higher because the effects of the Law of
Land Registry No. 496 Luciano Agustin appears as the acquirer a levy previously
enrolled and, as such, superior and preferable to the appeal. Of deed the parties is
sufficient authorization granted to the registrar to proceed with this registration
and entry in the corespondiente certificate of title transfer, registration and
annotation that can be verified at any time (art. 50 and 51, Law No . 496). In
connection with the loss Luciano preemption priority by reason of time, just
because he stopped to ask the Sheriff to sell at public auction the property, no law
supporting the criterion upheld by the Court. In this case it comes to determining
the preference two embargoes under execution, not the preference created by the
Public auction verified in execution of a judgment, and it is obvious that the
previously registered but is superior and preferable to later . Efecuada sale by the
Sheriff can not invoke the respondent preferred to convert their assessment
subsequently registered under it because I did not acquire more rights than they
had Tambunting verified at the time of public auction. As well as buying a
repossessed propiedaad preemptively acquires subject to the effects of the
embargo (against Joaquin Hazel, 6 Phil. Rep., 570), so the buying a repossessed
property under execution is acquired subject to the effects of the embargo. The
decision in the matter of Esguerra against Tecson and others, 21 Phil. Rep., 539,
invoked as the basis for the Court, it is not exactly apply to this case because in it
was a preferential claim against a debtor who does not It is the case.
the appealed order is revoked and declared that the charge obtained by the
respondent is not superior or preferable to Luciano Agustin, the cause of the
appellant; the costs of this instanciad to appeal. So it is ordered.