This is a petition  for  a writ of certiorari to the Judge of  the Court of First Instance  of Rizal, the register of deeds of  the same province, and one  Julian  Moreno.   The respondents filed a lengthy answer in which they,  without specifically denying any of the allegations of the petition, set forth very  fully their version of the facts of the case. To this answer the petitioners demurred, but upon hearing, counsel  for the petitioners moved for judgment on the pleadings,  which is  equivalent to a withdrawal of the demurrer.

The rule as to the effect of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is thus stated by this court  in the case of Bauermann vs. Casas  (10 Phil., 386): "One who prays for judgment on the pleadings without offering proof as to the truth of his own allegations, and without  giving the opposing party an opportunity to introduce  evidence,  must be understood to admit the truth of all the material and relevant allegations of the opposing party, and to rest his motion  for  judgment on  those allegations  taken  together with such  of his own as  are admitted in the pleadings. (La Yebana Company vs. Sevilla,  9 Phil., 210.)"  Following this rule, it becomes  necessary to examine the respondents'  answer in  detail.

In the answer the respondents allege, in substance, that the respondent Julian Moreno, by virtue of a contract with one Juan Cruz Sanchez, which contract is not in evidence, became entitled  to a conveyance to him of a portion of the land described in transfer certificate  of title No. 8164,  issued by the register of deeds of the Province of Rizal in pursuance of a final decree entered in land registration case No. 4429 and a subsequent transfer to said Juan Cruz Sanchez; that  the respondent Julian Moreno  applied to the court for an order segregating from said certificate of title the land to be  conveyed  to  him by  Juan  Cruz  Sanchez; that, after  several hearings, an order was finally issued in the aforesaid land  registration case  on  March 31, 1925, directing the respondent register of deeds of Rizal to  issue a new certificate of title in favor of the respondent Julian Moreno for the  portion claimed by him, and to note upon said certificate that Julian Moreno would  pay the expenses involved in making the segregation of said portion from the rest of the land; that the respondent register  of deeds on March 31, 1925, received a duly certified copy of said order, together with a plan and technical description of the portion segregated,  and a  plan and technical description of the remaining portion; that said register of deeds entered in his entry book the receipt of said order setting forth in said entry that the order was received on May 31, 1925, at twenty minutes past eleven of the forenoon of said day; that,  by reason of the fact that the  plans and technical descriptions had not been approved by the General Land Registration  Office, as required by the regulations of that office, the register of deeds was unable  immediately to issue a certificate of title in favor of Julian  Moreno; that, thereupon, the plans and  technical descriptions,  together with Juan  Cruz Sanchez' duplicate certificate of title, were transmitted to the  General Land Registration Office for affirmation and approval, and said office approved said plans and descriptions under the date of October 5, 1925; that in the meantime, on the 9th day of June, 1925, the herein petitioner filed with the respondent register of deeds a deed of conveyance executed by Juan Cruz Sanchez  in favor of  the petitioner for all of the land included in the transfer certificate of title No. 8164, and that, thereupon, transfer certificate of title No. 9392 was issued in favor of said petitioner,  but through the negligence of one of the clerks in  the office of the respondent register of deeds, no  memorandum  of  the order of March  31, 1925, was entered  upon said certificate of title No. 9392; that the petitioner is a relative of his vendor Juan  Cruz Sanchez and that he  did  not present the latter's certificate of title to the register of deeds  before said transfer  certificate No. 9392 was issued; that, thereafter, the respondent judge, on  November 19,  1925, issued an order directing that the petitioner  herein,  the respondent Julian Moreno, the administrator of the estate of Juan Cruz Sanchez, and the register of deeds be notified to appear before said court on the 28th of  the same month at 8.30 a. m.  for the hearing of the question as to whether or not the sale  by Juan Cruz Sanchez to Julian Moreno should be set aside; that, thereafter, the respondent judge, upon having called the matter for hearing at the time mentioned, entered an order on the same date directing the respondent register of deeds  to annul transfer certificate of title No. 9392 in regard to the portion claimed by Julian Moreno.

The respondents further allege that the register of deeds having obtained possession  of certificate of title No. 9392, said certificate was  in compliance with the order of November 28th, cancelled in regard to the portion claimed by Julian Moreno,  and transfer certificate No.  10006 issued in the latter's favor for  said portion; that, subsequently, on June 18, 1926, a mortgage executed by Julian Moreno in favor of the  Bureau of  Lands for the  sum of P10,000 and interest, was entered on said transfer certificate No. 10006 by memorandum.

The following allegations in the petition before us have not been denied and must therefore be considered admitted by the  respondents: That the petitioner  was not notified of the order of November 19, 1925 or  of the hearing had on the 28th of the same month; that the petitioner in compliance with an order of the court dated October 19,1925 and issued  in an action brought against him  by one Ocampo, surrendered his  certificate of title to  the register of  deeds for the purpose of the  entry thereon of a notice of Lis pendens and that it was only when the certificate was returned to him  several months later that he  learned  from memoranda entered on the certificate  without his knowledge and consent that orders had been issued for a partial cancellation of the certificate and for the issuance of another certificate in favor  of Julian Moreno.

The  facts stated  reveal gross negligence and  irregularities on the part of the register of deeds  and if the petitioner were a holder in good faith of his transfer certificate of title, he would unquestionably be  entitled  to  the  relief here demanded.   But it must be considered admitted that the certificate was issued to him without the presentation to the register of deeds of the owner's duplicate certificate of title held by his  vendor or of an order of the court authorizing the issuance  of a  new certificate.  If so, he cannot be  regarded as having  taken his certificate of  title in good faith.

Section 55 of the Land Registration Act provides among other things that:

  "No new certificate  of title  shall be entered, no memorandum shall be made upon  any certificate of title by the clerk, or  by any register  of deeds, in pursuance of any deed  or other voluntary instrument, unless the owner's duplicate  certificate is  presented for such indorsement, except in cases expressly provided for in this Act, or upon the order  of the court, for cause shown; and whenever such order is made, a memorandum thereof shall be entered upon the new  certificate of title  and upon the owner's duplicate."

The register of deeds was therefore without authority to issue  the  certificate in question and  as  the petitioner is presumed to have known the  law, he must also be presumed to have known that the register of deeds in thus issuing the certificate committed an illegal and  unauthorized  act and that the certificate suffered from the defect of having been  issued  without authority.  He  is  consequently not entitled to the  protection of  section 39 of the Land Registration Act, but stands in the shoes of his vendor and holds the title  subject to the order of March 81, 1925, issued against the vendor and in which the respondent judge provided for the segregation  of the land claimed by Moreno and ordered that a transfer certificate of title be issued in favor of the latter for the portion thus segregated.   In so ordering,  the respondent  judge acted within his jurisdiction  under section  112 of the Land Registration Act, and a writ, of certiorari will therefore not lie.

The petition is  therefore denied with  the costs against the petitioner.   So ordered.

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