RULE 57: PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT CASE DIGEST

Topic: Nature of Preliminary Attachment

Leticia Ligon vs RTC

Facts:
Petitioner filed a collection case, rescission of a contract with a prayer for the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment against Sps. Badajay and
Marasigan contending that Baladjay enticed her to extend a short-term loan and because Baldjay was selling her property, the proceeds thereof will be used
as payment of the loan. The checks issued by Baladjay bounced and were dishonored and petitioner subsequently discovered that the subject property was
already sold to a dummy corporation of Baladjay. An amended writ of preliminary attachment was issued which contained that several defendants were
dropped. When petitioner wanted the execution of the said writ, she discovered that the first attachment was already deleted because the property was sold
by public auction and a clean title was already issued to the highest bidder and issuance of a new title over the property was registered and recorded. This in
pursuant to the order of the RTC judge to issue a new CTC free from any liens and encumbrances.

Petitioner:
She has acquired a preferential right over the attached property since it serves as a lien or encumbrance.

Court of Appeals:
Dismissed the petition because the judge did not gravely abuse his discretion in issuing the orders.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner has a preferential right over the attached property.

SUPREME COURT:
Petition is partly meritorious (failed to prove on the issue of contempt)

Ratio:
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.

In this case, the RTC gravely abused its discretion considering that the claim is in the nature of attachment. The purpose of petitioner in filing such writ was
to be able to secure the satisfaction of favorable judgment and notwithstanding the subsequent cancellation, petitioner’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 is paid or
the attachment discharged or vacated in some manner provided by law. In effect, the claim of petitioner should have been preserved and will be carried over
to any subsequent title issued.