Dagupan Trading v. Macam
The corresponding notice of levy, certificate of sale
DOCTRINE:Where one of two conflicting sales of a piece of
land was executed before the land was registered, while the
other was an execution sale in favor of the judgment
creditor of the owner made after the same property had
been registered, what should determine the issue are the
provisions of the last paragraph of Section 35, Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court to the effect that, upon the execution and
delivery of the final certificate of sale in favor of the
purchaser of land sold in an execution sale, such purchaser
“shall be substituted to and acquire all the rights, title,
interest and claim of the judgment debtor to the property
as of the time of the levy.”
FACTS:
1. Sammy Maron and his seven brothers and sisters
were proindiviso owners of a parcel of unregistered
land in Pangasinan.
2. While their application for registration of said land
under Act No. 496 was pending, they executed two
deeds of sale conveying the property to appellee
[Macam]who thereafter took possession thereof and
introduced substantial improvements therein.
3. One month later, OCT was issued in favor of the
Maron’s free from, lien and encumbrances.
4. By virtue of a final judgment rendered in Civil Case
No. 42215 against Sammy Maron in favor of the
Manila Trading and Supply Company, levy was made
upon whatever interest he had in the
aforementioned property, and thereafter said
interest was sold at public auction to the judgment
creditor.
5.
and the Sheriff’s certificate of final sale in favor of
the Manila Trading and Supply Co.
6. On March 1, 1958, the latter sold all its rights, and
title to the property to appellant [Dagupan Trading].
ISSUE:
Who has the better right as between to the one-eighth
share of Sammy Maron in the property mentioned
heretofore?
HELD:
If the property covered by the conflicting sales were
unregistered land, Macam would have the better right in
view of thefact that his claim is based on a prior sale
coupled with public,exclusive and continuous possession
thereof as owner. On the otherhand, were the land involved
in the conflicting transactions duly registered land,
appellant has thebetter right because, in case ofconveyance
of registered real estate, the registration of the deed ofsale
is the operative act that gives validity to the transfer.
-The present case, however, does not fall within either
situation.Here the sale in favor of appellee was executed
before the land subject matter thereof was registered, while
the conflicting sale in favor of appellant was executed after
the same property had been registered.
-What should determine the issue are the provisions of the
last paragraph of Section 35, Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court, to the effect that upon the execution and delivery of
the final certificate of sale in favor of the purchaser of land
sold in an execution sale, such purchaser “shall be
substituted to and acquire all the right, title, interest and
claim of the judgment debtor to the property as of the time
of the levy.” Now we ask: What was the interest and
claim ofSammy Maron on the oneeighth portion of the
property inherited by him and his coheirs, at the time provisions of the last paragraph of Section 35, Rule 39 of
of the levy? The answer must necessarily be that he had the Rules of Court to the effect that, upon the execution and
none, because for a considerable time prior to the levy, his delivery of the final certificate of sale in favor of the
interest had already been conveyed to appellee, “fully and purchaser of land sold in an execution sale, such purchaser
irretrievably”. “shall be substituted to and acquire all the rights, title,
-Consequently, subsequent levy made on the property for interest and claim of the judgment debtor to the property
the purpose of satisfying the judgment rendered against as of the time of the levy.”
Sammy Maron in favor of the Manila Trading Company was
void and of no effect.Theunregistered sale and the
consequent conveyance of title andownership in favor of
appellee could not have been cancelled andrendered of no
effect upon the subsequent issuance of the Torrenstitle
over the entire parcel of land.
Dispositive: Macam Won.

Emergency Digest:
-Sammy Maron and his siblings were pro indiviso owners
of a parcel of land which they sold to appellee Macam
pending its registration uder Act No. 496.
-by virtue of the decision in a civil case against Sammy
Maron in facor of Manila Trading and Supply Company, levy
was made upon his interest in the property and it was
thereafter sold at a public auction. Final sale was made in
favor of Manila Trading and Supply Co. And the latter
subsequently sold all its rights to the property to Dagupan
Trading.
ISSUE: Who has a better right to the share of Sammy Maron
to the roperty?
HELD: Where one of two conflicting sales of a piece of land
was executed before the land was registered, while the
other was an execution sale in favor of the judgment
creditor of the owner made after the same property had
been registered, what should determine the issue are the