G.R. No. L-24428 June 26, 1968
PETRONILA BULAN and ROBERTO GARCIA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, GONZALO I. GUEVARA and RAMON V. PURUGGANAN, respondents.

FACTS

On December 29, 1964, petitioners Petronila Bulan and Roberto Garcia purchased Lot No. 4213-A in Solano, Nueva Ecija from the spouses Apolonio Laconza and Felicitas Ordoñez. The deed of sale was registered and annotated on the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-2679 on January 4, 1965. However, a prior adverse claim had been registered by respondent Gonzalo I. Guevara against the same lot on December 3, 1964, against the former owners (the Laconza spouses). The adverse claim stated that the lot was given as collateral for an obligation amounting to P2,225.00, plus other considerations potentially amounting to P5,000.00, and that the registered owners refused to execute the necessary deed as the property was mortgaged with the Development Bank of the Philippines and its certificate of title was with the Bank. Contending that the adverse claim appeared to have no supporting document and was thus defective for binding the registered land, the petitioners filed a petition for its cancellation under Section 110 of the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ). The adverse claimant opposed and moved for dismissal, arguing the annotation was proper and petitioners should have availed of the remedy under Article 476 of the Civil Code concerning quieting of title. The lower court sustained the adverse claimant and dismissed the petition. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting them to file a petition for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the order and compel the respondent Judge to ascertain and determine the validity of the adverse claim as provided by Section 110 of Act No. 496 .

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari and mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the lower court to ascertain and determine the validity of the adverse claim under Section 110 of the Land Registration Act.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the writ prayed for. The petition for certiorari and mandamus is not the proper remedy. The lower court did not act without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in issuing the order of dismissal to justify certiorari. Neither did it unlawfully neglect the performance of a duty specifically enjoined by law to be subject to mandamus. If the order of dismissal was an error of judgment, the remedy is by ordinary appeal. Furthermore, the adverse claim was directed against the previous owners of the lot, not against the petitioners. These previous owners were indispensable parties to any proceeding to determine the validity of the adverse claim, as such determination would require ascertaining whether the previous owners really intended the lot as collateral for a loan from the adverse claimant. Since they were not included as parties, the petition was without sufficient basis in law. Costs were imposed on the petitioners.