G.R. No. 26615, December 24, 1926
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs. HON. JULIO LLORENTE, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, JOSE TUPAS, Register of Deeds, and JULIAN MORENO, respondents.

DOCTRINE:
A transferee who obtains a transfer certificate of title without presenting the owner’s duplicate certificate of title or a court order authorizing its issuance, as required by Section 55 of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496), cannot be considered a holder in good faith. Such a transferee acquires no better right than the transferor and holds the title subject to all existing liens and orders enforceable against the transferor.

FACTS

1. Land Registration Case No. 4429: A final decree was issued, and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 8164 was issued in the name of Juan Cruz Sanchez.
2. Contract with Julian Moreno: Julian Moreno claimed a portion of the land covered by TCT No. 8164 by virtue of a contract with Sanchez. He applied to the court for an order to segregate that portion.
3. Court Order (March 31, 1925): The Court of First Instance of Rizal, through Judge Julio Llorente, issued an order directing the Register of Deeds to issue a new certificate of title in favor of Moreno for the segregated portion and to note that Moreno would pay the segregation expenses. A copy of this order, along with a plan and technical description, was received by the Register of Deeds.
4. Delay in Issuance: The issuance of Moreno’s new title was delayed because the plan and technical description required approval from the General Land Registration Office, which was granted on October 5, 1925.
5. Sale to Manuel Rodriguez (June 9, 1925): In the interim, on June 9, 1925, Juan Cruz Sanchez executed a deed of conveyance for the *entire* land in favor of Manuel Rodriguez. Rodriguez presented this deed to the Register of Deeds, and TCT No. 9392 was issued in his name for the whole property. Crucially, Rodriguez did not present Sanchez’s owner’s duplicate certificate of title (TCT No. 8164) to the Register of Deeds. Furthermore, due to negligence in the Register of Deeds’ office, no memorandum of the March 31, 1925 order in favor of Moreno was entered on Rodriguez’s new TCT No. 9392.
6. Subsequent Court Proceedings (November 1925): Judge Llorente, upon being informed of the situation, issued an order on November 19, 1925, setting a hearing for November 28, 1925. Rodriguez was not notified of this order or the hearing. On November 28, the court ordered the Register of Deeds to annul TCT No. 9392 with respect to the portion claimed by Moreno.
7. Cancellation and New Title for Moreno: The Register of Deeds complied, cancelled TCT No. 9392 in part, and issued TCT No. 10006 in favor of Moreno for the segregated portion. Rodriguez only learned of these actions when his certificate was returned to him months later, after he had surrendered it for an unrelated *lis pendens* annotation.
8. Petition for Certiorari: Rodriguez filed this petition for certiorari, seeking to annul the orders of Judge Llorente and the acts of the Register of Deeds, arguing they were issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of certiorari should be granted to annul the orders of the respondent judge and the acts of the register of deeds concerning the cancellation of part of Rodriguez’s certificate of title and the issuance of a new one in favor of Moreno.

RULING

NO, the petition for certiorari is denied.

1. Effect of Motion for Judgment on Pleadings: The Supreme Court ruled that by moving for judgment on the pleadings, Rodriguez admitted the truth of all material and relevant allegations in the respondents’ answer. This included the admission that he obtained TCT No. 9392 without presenting the owner’s duplicate certificate of title (TCT No. 8164) held by his vendor, Sanchez.

2. Violation of the Land Registration Act: Section 55 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act) mandates that no new certificate shall be entered “unless the owner’s duplicate certificate is presented… except… upon the order of the court.” Since Rodriguez did not present the owner’s duplicate and there was no court order authorizing the issuance without it, the Register of Deeds acted without authority in issuing TCT No. 9392 to Rodriguez.

3. Rodriguez Not a Holder in Good Faith: A transferee is presumed to know the law. Rodriguez is therefore presumed to have known that the Register of Deeds’ act was illegal and unauthorized. Consequently, he cannot be considered a purchaser or holder in good faith entitled to the protection of the Torrens system under Section 39 of the Land Registration Act. He merely “stands in the shoes” of his vendor, Juan Cruz Sanchez.

4. Title Subject to Existing Order: Since Rodriguez acquired no better right than Sanchez, his title was subject to the existing March 31, 1925 court order which directed the segregation of a portion for Moreno. Judge Llorente’s subsequent orders (November 1925) directing the partial cancellation of Rodriguez’s title and issuance of Moreno’s title were merely implementations of the prior, valid March 31 order.

5. Certiorari Does Not Lie: The respondent judge acted within his jurisdiction under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act in issuing the orders to carry out the segregation. Certiorari only lies for lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. No such defect was found. The irregularities and negligence of the Register of Deeds, while condemnable, did not render the judge’s orders void for lack of jurisdiction.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Costs against the petitioner, Manuel Rodriguez.