PETRONILA BULAN AND ROBERTO GARCIA, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE JUDGE HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, GONZALO I. GUEVARA AND RAMON V. PURUGGANAN, RESPONDENTS.

On December 29, 1964,
Lot No. 4213-A, situated at Solano, Nueva Ecija, and covered by TCT No. T-2679,
was sold by its original owners – the spouses Apolonio
Laconza and Felicitas
Ordonez – to herein petitioners.  The
deed evidencing the sale was registered and anno­tated on the back of the
certificate of title on January 4, 1965,
under entry No. 73830.  However, it
appears that there was a previous annotation of an adverse claim over the same
lot against the former owners (the spouses Apolonio Laconza and Felicitas Ordonez) in
favor of respondent Gonzalo I. Guevara. 
The adverse claim, regis­tered as early as December 3, 1964, under entry No. 73492 recites, among
other things, the following: 

“2. That my adverse claim consists in the fact that the
aforesaid parcel of land was given to me as a collateral for an obligation in
the total sum of TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE PESOS (P2,225.00)
Philippine Currency, aside from some other considerations which may amount to
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) Philippine Currency.

“3. That the said registered owners have refused and still
refuse to execute the necessary deed, as the said property is mortgage (d) with
the Development Bank of the Philip­pines and its certificate of title is with
the said Bank.”

Contending that from the context of the adverse claim there
seemed to be no document to support it at all, thus rendering it defective for
purposes of binding Lot No. 4213-A – admittedly a registered land – the
purchasers filed a petition for its cancellation under section 110 of the Land
Registration Act.  The adverse claimant
opposed and moved for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the
annotation was proper and that petitioners should have instead availed of the
remedy provided by article 476 of the Civil Code concerning quieting of title.

After hearing the court a quo sustained the adverse
claimant and accordingly dismissed the petition in an order dated February 26, 1965.  Petitioners’ motion for recon­sideration
having been denied, they came up here on a peti­tion for certiorari and
mandamus to set aside the disputed order and to compel respondent Judge
“to ascertain and determine the validity of respondent Gonzalo I.
Guevara’s claim, as provided by section 110 of Act 496.”

We find the instant petition without sufficient basis in law.

The adverse claim sought to be cancelled was specially directed
against the previous owners of Lot No.
4213-A, not against petitioners.  These
previous owners have not been included as parties.  Petitioners bought the land subject to the
adverse claim, and the question of its validity, which they would have the
lower court decide, would require a determination of whether or not the
previous owners really intended Lot No. 4213-A as collateral for a loan
supposedly advanced by the adverse claimant. 
Even assuming, therefore, as petitioners now contend, that such a
question, although of a contentious nature, may be considered and decided in
the land registration record and under section 110 of Act No. 496, the previous
owners against whom the adverse claim was filed are indispensable parties to
the case.

From the procedural point of view, the instant 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 so as to justify cer­tiorari.  Neither did it unlawfully neglect the
performance of an act specifically enjoined upon it as a duty by law so as to
be subject to mandamus.  If at all the
order of dismissal was an error of judgment, the remedy against which is by
ordinary appeal.

In view of the foregoing, the writ prayed for is denied,
with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro,
Angeles and Fernando, JJ.,
concur.