This is a petition for a writ of certiorari upon the following facts: In an action brought by Roberto Siochi against Petronilo David et  al. for the partition of a tract of land, this court,  in a decision promulgated January 8, 1919, ordered the partition in equal shares between the plaintiff and the defendant Petronilo David of some 15 hectares of the land and the case was ordered returned to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings in accordance with sections 184 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure.^[1]

Commissioners of partition were thereupon appointed, but for reasons which do not clearly appear, they did not take immediate action in the matter and  in the meantime, Petronilo David obtained Torrens certificates  of  title for the land in cadastral case No. 10 of the Province of Pampanga and,  on July  30, 1921, sold the land to the petitioner herein, Vicente Tuazon, the deed containing a recital to the effect that  of the land so sold, an area of 7 hectares and 50 ares was in dispute between the vendor and Roberto Siochi and  that the purchaser Vicente 'Riazon  was merely subrogated  to the rights and obligations  of  the vendor in relation to  said disputed portion,  and that said vendor did not warrant the  title to  the same.  Thereafter  transfer certificates  of title were issued in favor of Vicente Tuazon on March 8, 1923, but through the negligence of  the register of deeds, the reservation made in regard to  the land in dispute with Siochi was not entered upon the certificates of title.

Thereafter, on December 26, 1923, Tuazon presented to the Court of First Instance of Pampanga.a written protest against the partition  on the ground that he held  Torrens certificates of title to all of the land  and by reason of said protest, the Honorable Guillermo Guevara, Judge of that court,  after requiring the production in  court of the petitioner's transfer certificates of  title, set aside the order of partition and revoked the appointment  of the commissioners in an order dated February 4, 1924.  A motion for reconsideration  was filed by  Siochi and, on  July 7, 1924, the herein respondent, the Honorable Hermogenes Reyes, then Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, revoked the order of his predecessor and ordered the commissioners to execute  the partition of the land. In compliance with  the order  of Judge Reyes, the commissioners presented  their report adjudicating to Siochi his share of the land in  dispute  which report was duly approved by said judge,  Tuazon refused  to deliver possession to  Siochi of the land awarded the latter and,  on April 1, 1925, the respondent judge issued an order directing that Siochi  be  placed in possession of  the land  adjudicated to him.

This action was thereupon brought, the petitioner maintaining that  not being a party to the original action, his title was not affected by the partition  proceedings and that therefore the order of April 1, 1925,  directing that Siochi be placed in  possession of the portion adjudicated  to him in said proceedings was  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the court.

A purchaser  of registered  land who takes a certificate of title for value in good faith holds an indefeasible title to the  land and, if such was the  case here, the petitioner's contention  would be perfectly valid.  But here the element of good faith is lacking.  The defendant acquired his title while the partition proceedings were pending and his title is therefore  subject to the incidents  and results of the pending litigation and is no better than that of the  vendor in whose shoes he now stands.  In these circumstances, the petitioner's transfer  certificates of title can afford him no special protection.  The deed  under which the title was acquired expressly recites that the  land was in dispute and that as to the disputed portion  only  the interest of the vendor was  conveyed.  In ordering the  execution of the judgment of partition, the respondent judge did therefore not exceed his jurisdiction and a writ of certiorari will not lie.

During the pendency of this action, the respondent Siochi appears to  have executed a deed for the land in  question in favor of Rafael and Felipe David who have now filed a petition for intervention.  In view of the  present decision, such intervention is unnecessary and the petition therefor is  denied, but upon cancellation of the  transfer certificates  of title Nos. 617 and 618,  now held by the petitioner Vicente Tuazon, and upon presentation to the register of  deeds of the deed executed by Siochi  in  favor of Rafael and Felipe David, together with a technical description  of the segregated portion  of the land approved by the General Land Registration Office, transfer certificate of title may be issued direct to said Rafael and Felipe David in accordance with the deed without previous  issuance of such certificate to Roberto  Siochi.  If, as the record indicates, the land awarded to  Siochi in  the partition  proceedings embraces portions of two cadastral lots, Nos. 4166 and 4173, it will be necessary  to subdivide  said  lots in conformity with the provisions of section 6 of Act No. 2259.

For the reasons stated, the petition for a writ of certiorari is hereby  denied with the costs against the petitioner.

The preliminary injunction  herein-before issued  is dissolved without prejudice to the  respondent Siochi's claim for damages suffered by virtue of the issuance of said injunction.   Let transfer certificates  of title Nos. 617 and 618 of the registry of deeds of the Province  of Pampanga be detached from the  record and forwarded to the register of deeds for cancellation and  issuance of new certificates with properly approved technical description in accordance with the result of the partition proceedings.  So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street,  Malcolm,  Villamor, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] R. 6. No. 13057, not reported.