ltd, chap v cases

8/9/2019 LTD, Chap v Cases

1/34

Doctrine : Publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in the O cial Gazette is one of the essentialrequisites for a court to acquire jurisdiction in land registration and cadastral cases, and additional territorycannot be included by amendment of the lan !ithout ne! ublication" #efore a cadastral sur$ey can beamended so as to include land in !hich no ublication has been made, ne! ublication is necessary, % aste essential to the rotection of ersons interested in the ro erty !hich is intended to be included"

Director of Land vs. Benitez, 16 SCRA 557

FACTS:In a re$ious cadastral roceedings, res ondents !ere declared o!ners of lot &'() in *acloban +eyte '"(-sq.m" /fter &0yrs, the res ondents under the same cadastral court and under 1e ublic /ct 23 claims thatthrough o$ersight, inad$ertence and e4cusable neglect a ortion of said +ot No" & () containing an area of

,56( sq" m" has not been included in the original sur$ey" the courta quo issued an order admitting the etition, ordered that co ies of the original as !ell as of the amended

etition be furnished the 7olicitor General, the Pro$incial 8iscal of +eyte, the 9ity 8iscal of *acloban 9ity,and the 1egister of eeds of the ro$ince, setting"

the case for hearing on October 5, 2(5" *he court then declared the etitioners the o!ners of the saidmis laced lot" *he s ouses then mo$ed for a !rite of e4ecution and ossession, but the 0& eo le !ho!ere already occu ying the said additional lot o osed saying that they !ere granted the land by ir of +ands" 7ubsequently, the ir of lands made a motion to set aside the same judgment on the ground,among others, that said decision !as a nullity for the reason that the courta quo did not acquire jurisdiction to act on the etition of ;milio #enitez and his !ife for the reo ening of the cadastral roceedings for lac- of the requisite ublication and notice as required by la!" *his !asdenied, and hence this etition"

Iss e : is the re%o ening of the cadstral roceedings legalle a etition for reo ening of the 9adastral ursuant to 1e ublic /ct No" 23 !ith a $ie! of claiming such ortion of land !hich they mayha$e failed to include in their original etition for sur$ey and registration as authorized by the 9adastral/ct ro$ided that the etition be >led !ithin the eriod rescribed by said 1e ublic /ct No" 23 " HO?;@;1 a= /n order of a court in a cadastral case amending the o cial lan so as to ma-e it includeland not re$iously included therein is a nullity unless ne! ublication is made as a reliminary to suchste " Publication is one of the essential bases of the jurisdiction of the court in land registration andcadastral cases, and additional territory cannot be included by amendment of the lan !ithout ne!

ublication b= 1e ublic /ct No" 23 ma-es insofar as the right of a claimant to ha$e an additional ortion of land registered in his name is concerned in the sense that it can only be entertained if it does not refer Atosuch arcels of land as ha$e not been alienated, reser$ed, leased, granted, or authorized ro$isionally or

ermanently dis osed of by the Go$ernment"A Here it a ears that the additional ortion of land claimedby res ondents is actually occu ied by ersons !ho claim to be entitled to it by $irtue of lease a licationsor ermits granted to them by the #ureau of +ands

BG"1" No" 3('2" Culy (, 220D

R#$%BLIC &F T!# $!ILI$$I'#S, (Re)resented *+ t e DIR#CT&R &F LA'DS-, )etitioner, vs.C&%RT &F A$$#ALS and !#IRS &F L%IS RIBA A, na/e"+, A'DR#A RIBA A B%#'0IA #, L%ISRIBA A, A'T&'IA RIBA AC&'D#, and &!' D R#BA A, a"" re)resented *+ A'DR#A RIBA A2B%#'0IA # as Ad/inistratri3 of t e #state of L is Ri*a+a, res)ondents.D # C I S I & 'DA0ID#, R., .:

Petitioner see-s the re$ersal of the 1esolutionB D of &' Canuary 22' of the 9ourt of / eals in 9/%G"1" 9@No" )3( , !hich set aside its earlier decisionB&D of 2 Canuary 22 " *he latter a rmed the decisionB3D of

No$ember 25) of the 1egional *rial 9ourt E1*9=, #ranch ), +egaz i 9ity, in 9i$il 9ase No" 0 25 !hichdeclared null and $oid an original certi>cate of title issued ursuant to a decree and a decision in a landregistration case decided on 5 7e tember 2&("


2/34

/fter the ri$ate res ondents >led their 9omment and the etitioner their 1e ly, !e ga$e due course tothe etition and required the arties to submit their res ecti$e memoranda"

*he 9ourt of / ealsF re$ersal !as rimarily due to its disagreement !ith the trial courtFs >ndings of fact"Hence, such remo$es this case from the general rule that factual >ndings of the 9ourt of / eals bind us ina etition for re$ie! under 1ule '( of the 1ules of 9ourt"B'D ?e are thus com elled to re$ie! the factualantecedents"

8rom the decisions of the trial court and the 9ourt of / eals and the leadings of the arties, thefollo!ing !ere established:

On the basis of the ri$ate res ondentsF e4hibits,B(D on 2, 6, &% 0, &3, &', &0, and &) Culy 2&6, a arcelof land located in the barrio of agragondong, unici ality of +igao, Pro$ince of /lbay, !as sur$eyed forthe s ouses +uis 1ibaya and /gustina 1e$atoris Ehereinafter the s ouses 1ibaya= by *elesforo ntalan, a#ureau of +ands sur$eyor" *he arcel of land !as found to com rise an area of &(,('&,063 square meters"

*he sur$ey lan !as denominated as Plan II% 320 and allegedly a ro$ed by the /cting irector of +andson 3 Canuary 2&&" Ho!e$er, as noted by the 9ourt of / eals in its 2 Canuary 22 decision,B0D thesee4hibits do not at all sho! the sur$eyorFs signature" oreo$er, as er +and 9lassi>cation a No" 5) of the #ureau of 8orestry, the abo$e arcel of land !as considered art of the ublic forest and released fordis osition only on 3 ecember 236"B)D

In 2&(, the s ouses 1ibaya a lied for registration and con>rmation of title of the lot co$ered by Plan II%320 before the then 9ourt of 8irst Instance E98I= of /lbay" *he case !as doc-eted as +19 9ase No" (&,

G"+"1"O" 1ecord No" &06(6" Notice of the a lication, and hearing thereof !ere ublished in the ) arch2&( issue of the O cial Gazette,B5D and in its decision of 5 7e tember 2&(,B2D the 98I granted the said

a lication"

7ometime later, or on 5%& No$ember and &3%36 No$ember 2&(, a resur$ey of the arcel of landco$ered by Plan II% 320 !as conducted at the instance of the s ouses 1ibaya" *his ga$e rise to Plan II

320 %/md", !hich embraced, inter alia, four diJerent arcels of land !ith an aggregate area of only6,2)(,6&& square meters, instead of the original &(,('&,063 square meters" Plan II% 320 %/md"

a eared to ha$e been a ro$ed by the irector of +ands on &0 8ebruary 2&0"B 6D *he a lication !asnot amended to reKect the resur$ey and the amended lan !as not ublished"

On 3 Culy 2&0, the corres onding decree of registration !as issued,B D !hile on 2 /ugust 2&0,Original 9erti>cate of *itle EO9*= No" 32') co$ering the four lots embraced by Plan II% 320 %/md" !asissued in the names of the s ouses 1ibaya"B &D

On 7e tember 2(5, O9* No" 32') !as administrati$ely reconstituted from the o!nerFs du licate co ythereof and the reconstituted title !as denominated as O9* No" PO% 65'5 E32')="B 3D

In 20', the heirs of +uis 1ibaya Eherein ri$ate res ondents= recei$ed com ensation from the 8oreign9laims 7ettlement 9ommission of the nited 7tates for damages sustained by the land during the !ar"B 'D

In 205, ursuant to a deed of artition e4ecuted by the ri$ate res ondents herein, the land co$ered byO9* No" 1O% 65'5 E32')= !as subdi$ided er 7ubdi$ision Plan +19 Psd%206)(, a ro$ed on 0 ecember

205"B (D *hen, O9* No" 1O% 65'5 E32')= !as cancelled and se arate *ransfer 9erti>cates of *itle E*9*=!ere issued to the ri$ate res ondents"B 0D

In a letter dated 0 Canuary 2)), si4ty%t!o E0&= farmers occu ying the landB )D and claiming o!nershithereof, requested the irector of +ands to institute an action to annul O9* No" 1O% 65'5 E32')="B 5D8inding merit in the request, herein etitioner >led a $eri>ed com laint, dated ) /ugust 2)5, !ith the98I Eno! 1egional *rial 9ourt= of /lbay, #ranch @, for the declaration of nullity of O9* No" 32'), O9* No"1O% 65'5 E32')=, and all subsequent titles emanating from the original title, $iz", *9* Nos" *%3 333 to *%3 3(5, inclusi$e" *he case !as doc-eted as 9i$il 9ase No" 0 25"

*he etitioner claimed therein that O9* No" 32') !as obtained through fraud and that the landregistration court did not acquire jurisdiction o$er the land for lac- of re ublication of the amended lan,neither did the s ouses%a licants com ly !ith 7ection '(Eb= of /ct No" &5)'"B 2D *he etitioner furtheralleged that at the time the etition for registration !as >led, the land co$ered therein !as forest land, andtherefore, inalienable"


3/34

On &) October 2)2, the aforementioned 0& farmers >led a com laint%in%inter$ention and rayed that theland re$ert to the etitioner and their titles o$er the ortions res ecti$ely occu ied by them con>rmed"

In its decision of No$ember 25)B&6D the 1egional *rial 9ourt E1*9= held for the etitioner as follo!s:

?H;1;8O1;, decision is hereby rendered as follo!s:

" eclaring Original 9erti>cate of *itle No" 32') and administrati$ely reconstituted Original 9erti>cate of *itle No" 1O% 65'5 E32')= as null and $oid ab initio and !ithout force and eJectL

&" eclaring se arate *ransfer 9erti>cates of *itle, to !it: *%3 333, *%3 33', *%3 33(, *%3 330, *% 3 33), *%3 335, *%3 332, *%3 3'6, *%3 3' , *%3 3'&, *%3 3'3, *%3 3'', *%3 3'(, *%3 3'0, *%3 3'), *% 3 3'5, *%3 3'2, *%3 3(6, *%3 3( , *%3 3(&, *%3 3(3, *%3 3(', *%3 3((, *%3 3(0, *%3 3() and *%3 3(5, emanatingfrom O9* No" 32') and O9* No" 1O% 65'5 E32')=, all issued to the heirs of +uis 1ibaya and /gustina1e$atoris, as li-e!ise null and $oid and !ithout force and eJectL

3" Ordering Bres ondentsD Heirs of +uis 1ibaya and /gustina 1e$atoris to surrender their co y of O9* No"1O% 65'5 E32')= as !ell as their se arate transfer certi>cates of title to the 1egister of eeds of /lbay,!ho Esic= is thereafter directed or ordered to cancel the sameL

'" Ordering the re$ersion of the land to B etitionerD 1e ublic of the Phili ines, as alienable and dis osableland of the ublic domain"

(" /nd ordering the dismissal of the counterclaim"

*he trial court found that at the time the s ouses 1ibaya >led their etition for registration, the land !asalready classi>ed as alienable and dis osable agricultural landL ho!e$er, the then 98I, as a landregistration court, did not acquire jurisdiction o$er the said lot due to lac- of ublication or re ublication inthe O cial Gazette of Plan II% 320 %/md", !hich !as the basis of the decree of registration and O9* No"32')" 9onsequently, said O9* No" 32') and its deri$ati$e titles !ere $oid"B& D In so >nding, it relied on8e!-es $s" @asquez,B&&D !here it !as held that any amendment or alteration in the descri tion of the landafter its ublication and decree of registration !as not ermissible unless cou led !ith re ublication"

*he trial court li-e!ise ruled that there !as no e$idence that the ossession of the s ouses 1ibaya andtheir redecessors%in%interests !as o en, continuous, and ad$erse under a bona >de claim of o!nershi forthe required number of yearsL moreo$er, they failed to resent any ta4 declarations" It then concludedthat the said 7 ouses may ha$e occu ied ortions of the land at a later time, but not in the conce t of bona >de o!ners, for mere casual culti$ation and raising of cattle on the land did not constituteA ossessionA as contem lated by la!"B&3D

*he ri$ate res ondents a ealed to the 9ourt of / eals E9/%G"1" 9@ No" )3( =, !hich, in itsdecisionB&'D of 2 Canuary 22 , a rmed in toto the a ealed decision of the trial court" *he a ellatecourt further ointed out another reason !hy the registration in fa$or of the a licants !as in$alid, thus:

B?Dhen BtheD s ouses B+uis 1ibaya and /gustina 1e$atorisD a lied for registration thereof in their namessaid land !as still art of the ublic forest" *he land !as released for ublic dis osition only on ecember3 , 236 as sho!n by the +and 9lassi>cation a No" 5) of the #ureau of 8orestry E;4hs M, M%(="9onsequently, O9* No" 32') as reconstituted by O9* No" 1O% 65'5 is $oid ab initio"

It is !ell%settled that lands of the ublic domain classi>ed as forest or timber lands, are inca able of registration in the names of ri$ate ersons and their inclusion in a title nulli>es the title E irector of +ands$s" 1eyes, 05 791/ )) and cases cited therein"=B&(D

In refuting the claim of the ri$ate res ondents that ublication of the amended sur$ey lan !asunnecessary in light of the decision of this 9ourt in #enin $s" *uazon,B&0D the 9ourt of / eals held that thefacts in #enin !ere diJerent" In #enin, an a ro$ed sur$ey lan !as submitted before the ro erty !asdecreed for registration, !hile in the resent case:

B*Dhe land !as decreed for registration on 7e tember 5, 2&(, !hile its sur$ey !as erformed sometimein No$ember and ecember 2&(" *he amended sur$ey lan E lan II% 320 %/md"= thereof !as a ro$ed


4/34

by the irector of +ands on 8ebruary &0, 2&0" In other !ords, the sur$ey lan E lan II% 320 %/md"= of theland in the instant case !as a ro$ed !hen the land !as already decreed for registration" " " "B&)D

*here !as then, the 9ourt of / eals concluded, a $iolation of 7ections &3 and &0 of /ct No" '20"B&5D

*he ri$ate res ondents seasonably mo$ed for a reconsideration of this decision"

In its resolutionB&2D of &' Canuary 22', the 9ourt of / eals granted the motion for reconsideration andset aside its decision of 2 Canuary 22 , re$ersed that of the trial court of No$ember 25), anddismissed the com laint and the com laint%in%inter$ention in 9i$il 9ase No" 0 25 of #ranch ) of the 1*9 of +egaz i 9ity" In o$erturning its re$ious decision, the 9ourt of / eals ruled that O9* No" 32') Aisconclusi$e u on and against all ersons, including the Go$ernment and all its branches E7ec" 35, /ct No"'20= as to all matters contained therein E7ec" '), /ct No" '20=" One E = year after its transcri tion !hich isthe date of its eJecti$ity E7ec" '&, /ct No" '20=, said certi>cate of title became incontro$ertible E7ec" 35,/ct No" '20="AB36D

It further a lied the resum tion of regularity in the grant of the land a lied for by the s ouses 1ibaya,and e$en e4tended said resum tion to their com liance !ith all conditions required by la!, in articular,their Ao en, continuous, e4clusi$e and notorious ossession and occu ation of the land under a bona >declaim of o!nershi since Culy &0, 52'"A It thus burdened the 1e ublic Ato ro$e other!ise"AB3 D

It li-e!ise ruled that the failure of the s ouses 1ibaya to resent ta4 recei ts !as not fatal, and thatalthough they actually li$ed in Oas, /lbay, such did not negate the character of their ossession forAB Dossession in the eyes of the la! does not mean that a man has to ha$e his feet on e$ery square meterof ground before he can be said that he is in ossession"AB3&D

*he 9ourt of / eals also rejected the a lication of the 8e!-es case and a lied, instead, the decision in#enin, !here this 9ourt held that re ublication could be dis ensed !ith in an amendment in thea lication or in the sur$ey lan, !here such amendment consisted of the e4clusion of a ortion co$eredby the original a lication and the original sur$ey lan as ublished" /ccordingly, the land registrationcourt retained its jurisdiction"

8inally, the 9ourt of / eals !ithdre! its earlier >nding that the land in question still formed art of theublic forest at the time of the a lication for registration" It asserted, instead, that there !as insu cient

basis to conclude that a arcel of land only became o en to dis osition on the basis of the date of a ro$alof the land classi>cation ma , because such a ro$al may ha$e been made later by authority of a riore4ecuti$e declaration"B33D

nsatis>ed, the etitioner >led the instant etition and asserts that E = the indefeasibility of title does notlie against the 7tate in an action for re$ersion of landL E&= the s ouses%a licants failed to ro$e ossessionof the land for the eriod required by la!, and the e$idence sho!s that their ossession !as not o en,continuous, e4clusi$e, and notorious under a bona >de claim of o!nershi L E3= the amended sur$ey lan!as not ublished, E'= the land co$ered by O9* No" 32') !as then art of the forest land, hence,inalienableL and E(= the accuracy of the land sur$ey !as doubtful"B3'D

In their 9omment, the ri$ate res ondents allege that the etition merely raises factual matters and arguethat O9* No" 32') is absolutely incontestable, considering that the land !as no longer art of the ublicforest !hen it !as decreed in fa$or of their arents" *hey further contend, in$o-ing #enin, that the issueof re ublication is ina licable since the ublication of the original sur$ey lan !as already had incom liance !ith la!" oreo$er, ossession of the land by their arents, the s ouses%a licants, !as duly

ro$en, i"e", donations of ortions thereof in fa$or of the go$ernment and the com ensation they recei$edfrom the 8oreign 9laims 7ettlement 9ommission of the nited 7tates for damages sustained by the landduring the !ar su ciently ro$ed that they !ere the legitimate o!ners of the land" 8inally, the originalsur$ey lan could no longer be questioned by the etitioner"B3(D

/s the 9ourt sees it, only t!o rele$ant issues need be resol$ed, to !it:

" ?hether the 1e ublic of the Phili ines is barred by rescri tion to bring the action for annulment of O9* No" 32') and all its deri$ati$e certi>cates of titleL and


5/34

&" ?hether the land registration court acquired jurisdiction o$er the four arcels of land subject of theamended sur$ey lan EPlan II% 320 %/md"= and co$ered by the decree issued on 3 Culy 2&0 by theGeneral +and 1egistration O ce ursuant to the decision of the said court of 5 7e tember 2&("

/s to the >rst issue, !e >nd that the 9ourt of / eals erred in holding that O9* No" 32') !as, to re eat:

B9Donclusi$e u on and against all ersons, including the Go$ernment and all its branches E7ec" 35, /ct No"'20= as to all matters contained therein E7ec" '), /ct No" '20=" One E = year after its transcri tion !hich isthe date of its eJecti$ity E7ec" '&, /ct No" '20=, said certi>cate of title became incontro$ertible E7ec" 35,/ct No" '20="B30D

8irst, the one%year eriod ro$ided for in 7ection 35 of /ct No" '20 merely refers to a etition for re$ie!and is rec-oned from the entry of the decree" In the second lace, there are other remedies a$ailable toan aggrie$ed arty after the said one%year eriod, e"g", recon$eyance, co$ered by 7ection 0( of /ct No"'20 !hich, inter alia, ro$ides that Ain all cases of registration rocured by fraud, the o!ner may ursue allhis legal and equitable remedies against the arties to such fraud, !ithout rejudice, ho!e$er, to therights of any innocent holder for $alue of a certi>cate of title"AB3)D +i-e!ise, an action for damages issanctioned in cases !here the ro erty has been transferred to an innocent urchaser for $alue, !hichmay be >led !ithin four years from disco$ery of the fraud"B35D 1ecourse may also be had against the/ssurance 8und"B32D

8inally, rescri tion ne$er lies against the 7tate for the re$ersion of ro erty !hich is art of the ublicforest or of a forest reser$ation !hich !as registered in fa$or of any arty" *hen too, ublic land registeredunder the +and 1egistration /ct may be reco$ered by the 7tate at any time" In 1e ublic $s" /nimas,B'6D!e ruled:

Public land fraudulently included in atents or certi>cates of title may be reco$ered or re$erted to the statein accordance !ith 7ection 6 of the Public +and /ct" Prescri tion does not lie against the state in suchcases for the 7tatute of +imitation does not run against the state" *he right of re$ersion or recon$eyanceto the state is not barred by rescri tion"

?e therefore hold that since the land a lied for by the s ouses 1ibaya !as art of the ublic forest andreleased only on 3 ecember 236,B' D the land registration court acquired no jurisdiction o$er the land,!hich !as not yet alienable and dis osable" Hence, the 7tateFs action to annul the certi>cates of titleissued thereunder and for the re$ersion of the land is not barred by rescri tion"

/nent the second issue, !e hold that the land registration court in +19 9ase No" (&, G"+"1"O" 1ecord No"&06(6 ne$er acquired jurisdiction o$er the land co$ered by either the original lan EPlan II% 320 = or theamended lan EPlan II% 320 %/md"= for lac- of su cient ublication of the >rst and total !ant of

ublication of the second"

/s found by both the trial court in 9i$il 9ase No" 0 25 and the 9ourt of / eals, the notice of the hearingof a lication of the s ouses 1ibaya for the registration of the land co$ered by the original lan !as

ublished in the ) arch 2&( issue of the O cial Gazette" In short, there !as only one ublicationthereof" 7ection 3 of /ct No" '20, the go$erning la! then, required t!o ublications" Hence, the decisionof 5 7e tember 2&( of the land registration court !as $oid for !ant of the required ublications" *herequirement of dual ublication is one of the essential bases of the jurisdiction of the registration courtLB'&D it is a jurisdictional requisite"B'3D +and registration is a roceeding in rem and jurisdiction in remcannot be acquired unless there be constructi$e seizure of the +and through ublication and ser$ice of notice"B''D

?orse, the decision of 5 7e tember 2&( !as entirely based on an alleged original sur$ey lan" *he factremains, ho!e$er, that in No$ember of that year that original lan !as amended EPlan II% 320 %/md"= andthe amended lan !as not ublished at all" *here is no e$idence that the court amended its decision toconform to the amended lan, neither is there a sho!ing that the arties e$en attem ted ublicationthereof" Ho!e$er, the decree that !as subsequently issued !as based on the amended lan insofar as thefour lots !ere concerned"

/ decree of registration is required to recite the descri tion of the land"B'(D On the basis of the decree,O9* No" 32') !as issued" It follo!s then that the land registration court may ha$e amended its decisionto conform to the amended lan for the four lots !hich ultimately found their !ay into the decree issued


6/34

by the General +and 1egistration O ce, and >nally, into O9* No" 32')" ?hether it did so or not and theGeneral +and 1egistration O ce merely adjusted the decree to conform to the amended lan, such aims!ere fatally Ka!ed due to the absence of ublication of the amended lan" /s such, the land registrationcourt acquired no jurisdiction o$er the land embraced by the amended lan"

*he 9ourt of / eals in its challenged resolution of &' Canuary 22' and the ri$ate res ondents, ho!e$er,maintain that the ublication of the amended lan !as unnecessary under our ronouncements in #enin$s" *uazon"B'0D *his case reiterates our rulings in Phili ine anufacturing 9o" $s" Im erial,B')D Cuan and9huongco $s" Ortiz,B'5D #an- of the Phili ine Islands $s" /cu a,B'2D +ichauco $s" Herederos de 9or us,B(6D and irector of +ands $s" #enitez,B( D that only !here the original sur$ey lan is amended during theregistration roceedings, by the addition of land not re$iously included in the original lan, should

ublication be made in order to confer jurisdiction on the court to order the registration of the area addedafter the ublication of the original lan" 9on$ersely, if the amendment does not in$ol$e an addition, buton the contrary, a reduction of the original area that !as ublished, no ne! ublication is required"

1eliance on #enin and its redecessors is mis laced" In the >rst lace, the amendment of the originalsur$ey lan for the land a lied for by the s ouses 1ibaya !as made after the land registration courtrendered its decision" It follo!s then that a re%o ening of the case !as indis ensableL ho!e$er, no suchre% o ening a ears to ha$e been done therein" 7econd, as earlier sho!n, the land registration courtacquired no jurisdiction o$er the land co$ered by the original lan because of insu cient ublication in theO cial Gazette" *hird, it has not been su ciently sho!n that the four arcels of land co$ered by O9* No"32'), !hich are based on the amended lan, are but a small art of the same and co$ered by the originalsur$ey lan" *his conclusion is thoroughly discussed belo!"

In the &' Canuary 22' resolution of the 9ourt of / eals, it found the original areas co$ered by Plan 320to be &(,('&,063 square meters and the four arcels of land embraced in the amended lan, Plan II% 320 %/md", to be in the aggregate of 6,2)(,6&& square meters" *hus:

In the case at bar, in 2&(, the s ouses 1ibaya sought for a judicial con>rmation of im erfect orincom lete title of the land described as follo!s:

Parcel of land EPlan II% 320 = containing an area of &(,('&,063 square meters, !ith the buildings andim ro$ements thereon, situated in the #arrio agragondong, unici ality of +igao, Pro$ince of /lbay, P"I" 44 4 EItalics 7u lied="

7aid &(,('&,063 square meter land !as sur$eyed on Culy 2, 6, &% 0, &3, &', &0 and &), 2&6 by *elesforontalan, a sur$eyor of the #ureau of +ands !hich sur$ey !as a ro$ed by the /cting irector of +ands on

Canuary 3, 2&&, E;4h" 0="

*he notice of a lication and hearing of the land as aforedescribed, !as ublished in the arch ), 2&(issue of the O cial Gazette E;4hs" C and C% ="

*he land registration court issued a decision in fa$or of the s ouses 1ibaya on 7e tember 5, 2&( but fora smaller arcel of land than the &(,('&,(63 square meters are a lied for" On No$ember &3 and 36,

2&(, said smaller arcel of land !as sur$eyed by +and 7ur$eyor ?enceslao anuel, and !as a ro$ed bythe irector of +ands on 8ebruary &0, 2&0 as Plan II% 320 %/md" E;4h" H and series="

Plan II% 320 %/md" embraced ' arcels of land in the aggregate area of 6,2)(,6&& square metersse arately described as follo!s:

" / arcel of land E+ot No" Plan II% 320 %/md"=, containing an area of 3,3 5,'(' square meters, more orlessL

&" / arcel of land E+ot No" & Plan II% 320 %/md"=, containing an area of ,()(, 2( square meters more orlessL

3" / arcel of land E+ot No" 3 Plan II% 320 %/md"=, containing an area of ',5'',&6( square meters, more orlessL

'" / arcel of land E+ot No" ' Plan II% 320 %/md"=, containing an area of ,&3),305 square meters, more orless"B(&D


7/34

*his !as also its >nding in its earlier decision of 2 Canuary 22 "B(3D

In their 9omment of 36 ay 22', the ri$ate res ondents do not, for ob$ious reasons, dis ute such>nding and so they not only quoted it therein,B('D they also e4 licitly assert that:

*he undis uted facts are that the original lan of the land a lied for !hich !as ublished in the O cialGazette contained an area of &(,('&,063 square meters" *he land actually embraced in the decree of registration contained only 6,2)(,6&& square meters"B((D EItalics su lied=

In hectares, the &(,('&,063 square meters means *!o *housand 8i$e Hundred and 8ifty 8our Hectares, t!oares, and si4 hundred and three centares E&,((' has", & ares, and 063 centares=L and the 6,2)(,6&&square meters means one thousand and ninety se$en hectares, >$e ares, and t!enty%t!o centares E ,62)has", ( ares, and && centares="

Ho!e$er, the trial court is some!hat confused as to the area of the land co$ered by Plan II% 320 , as !ellas, that co$ered by the amended lan EPlan II% 320 %/md"=" *hus:

B/Dnd on arch ), 2)5 +and In$estigator 7elecio 7an 8eli e !rote the irector of +ands that the re ort of the ocular ins ection and in$estigation conducted on ay ', ( and 0, 2)) !as true and correct, " " "that Plan II 320 %/md", 7heet no" , sur$eyed for +uis 1ibaya, !ith an area of '52"30'2 hectares,located at agragondong, +igao, /lbay, !as sur$eyed on No$ember 5%& , ecember 5%2, 2&( by Pri$ate+and 7ur$eyor ?enceslao anuel, and !as a ro$ed by the irector of +ands on 8ebruary &0, 2&0E;4hibits G, G%l and G%& for laintiJ and ;4hibits GG, GG%l and GG%& for Inter$enors=L that Plan II% 320/md", 7heet no" &, sur$eyed for +uis 1ibaya, !ith an area of 065" 3)3 hectares, located at agragondong,+igao, /lbay, !as sur$eyed on No$ember &3%36, 2&( by Pri$ate +and 7ur$eyor ?enceslao anuel, and!as a ro$ed by the irector of +ands on 8ebruary &0, 2&0 E;4hibits H, H%l and H%& for laintiJ and;4hibits HH, HH% and HH%& for inter$enors=L " " " that Original 9erti>cate of *itle No 1O% 65'5 E32')=co$ers ' arcels of land, to !it: +ot No" , Plan II% 320 %/md"=, containing an area of 3,3 5"'(' squaremeters more or less, +ot No" &, Plan II% 320 %/md"=, containing an area of ,()(" 2( square meters moreor less, +ot No" 3, Plan II% 320 % /md"=, containing an area of ',5''"66( square meters more or less, and+ot No" ', Plan II% 320 %/md"=, containing an area of ,&3)"305 square meters more or less !ith a total of

6,2)("6&& square meters more or lessL 4 4 4 that Plan II% 320 of ro erty as sur$eyed for +uis 1ibaya,situated in the barrio of agragondong, unici ality of +igao, ro$ince of /lbay, containing an area of &(,('&"063 square meters, !as sur$eyed on Culy 2, 6, &% 0, &3, &', &0 and &), 2&6 in accordance !ith7ection '( of /ct &5)' by *elesforo ntalan, a sur$eyor of the #ureau of +ands, and the said lan !asa ro$ed by the /cting irector of +ands on Canuary 3, 2&& E;4hibits 0 and 0%/=" " " "B(0D EItalics su lied=

Note that instead of a comma E,= before the last three digits in the areas of the four lots co$ered by theamended lan, as !ell as the areas embraced in the original lan, the trial court laced a eriod E"=" *hechange from a comma to a eriod is of $ital signi>cance" 8or, translated into hectares, the &(,('&"063square meters !ould be only *!o E&= hectares, >$e E(= ares, and >$e hundred and forty%t!o E('&= centaresLand the aggregate of 6,2)("6&& square meters for the four lots embraced in Plan II% 320 %/md" !ould beone E = hectare and nine hundred se$enty%>$e E2)(= centares"

Indeed, the disagreement bet!een the 9ourt of / eals and the trial court as to the land area of theoriginal sur$ey lan EPlan II% 320 =, i"e", !hether it !as &(,('&,063 square meters Et!enty%>$e million >$ehundred and forty%t!o thousand and si4 hundred three square meters= as found by the former, or&(,('&"063 square meters Et!enty%>$e thousand, >$e hundred forty%t!o oint si4 hundred and threesquare meters= as found by the latter, only sho!s the unreliability of the original lan sought to beestablished through ;4hibits 0 and 0%/" *he 9ourt of / eals itself so found it to be in its decision of 2

Canuary 22 because these e4hibits did not sho! that the sur$ey lan !as signed by the sur$eyor" *hus:

/lthough the trial court said so Edecision, " '= its basis, !hich is Eoriginal= Plan II% 320 E;4hs" 0, 0%/=, didnot indubitably establish the same" In the >rst lace, said original lan EPlan II% 320 = does not bear thesignature of the sur$eyor thereof, thereby casting doubt on its genuineness and due e4ecution" 4 4 4B()DEItalics su lied=

7uch doubt gains strength if !e consider that if indeed the area embraced therein !as that found by the9ourt of / eals, i"e", &(,('&,063 square meters !ith a comma before the last three digits it !ouldha$e been hysically im ossible to >nish the sur$ey thereof in only ele$en days E2, 6, &% 0, &3, &', &0,


8/34

and &) Culy 2&6=" Plainly, the resent%day so histicated sur$ey instruments !ere not then a$ailable"8urthermore, the trial court indicated in its >ndings of fact that in addition to the four lots co$ered by O9*No" 32'), there !ere other large tracts co$ered by the amended sur$ey lan EPlan II% 320 %/md"=, $iz":

B*Dhat Plan II% 320 %/md", 7heet no" , sur$eyed for +uis 1ibaya, !ith an area of '52"30'2 hectares,located at agragondong, +igao, /lbay, " " " E;4hibits G, G% and G%& for laintiJ and ;4hibits GG, GG% andGG%& for Inter$enors=L that Plan II% 320 /md", 7heet no" &, sur$eyed for +uis 1ibaya, !ith an area of 065" 3)3 hectares, located at agragondong, +igao, /lbay,""" E;4hibits H, H% and H%& for laintiJ and;4hibits HH, HH% and HH%& for inter$enors=LB(5D EItalics su lied=

*he disagreement bet!een the trial court and the 9ourt of / eals cannot be de>nitely resol$ed becauseno reliable co y of the original Plan II% 320 !as resented" ;4hibits A0 and 0%/ are a machine co y of the blue rint of the said Plan, !hich is not the best e$idence under 7ection 3, 1ule 36 of the 1ules of 9ourt" *hey are, at most, secondary e$idence, !hich are inadmissible for failure of the oJer or to ro$eany of the e4ce tion ro$ided therein and to established the conditions for their admissibility" ;$en if theyare admitted, they ha$e no robati$e $alue"

9learly then, there is absence of factual basis to conclude that the four arcels of land included in O9* No"32') are but a art of the land co$ered by the original lan EPlan II% 320 ="

?H;1;8O1;, the etition is G1/N*; " *he challenged resolution of &' Canuary 22' of the res ondent9ourt of / eals in 9/%G"1" 9@ No" )3( is 7;* /7I ;, !hile its decision therein of 2 Canuary 22a rming in toto that of #ranch ) of the 1egional *rial 9ourt of +egas i 9ity of No$ember 25) in 9i$il9ase No" 0 25 is 1;IN7*/*; and /88I1 ; "

9osts against the ri$ate res ondents"

7O O1 ;1; "

Nar$asa, 9"C", E9hairman=, elo, 8rancisco, and Panganiban, CC", concur"

4.R. 'o. 5515 ne 6, 1 1 R#$%BLIC &F T!# $!ILI$$I'#S, )etitioner, vs. FL&R#'CIAARASI4A', and !&'. C&%RT &F A$$#ALS, res)ondent

*he 7olicitor General for etitioner, C" 1enato @" +e$iste for ri$ate res ondent"/@I ;, C1", C":

*his is an a eal by certiorari under 1ule '( of the 1ules of 9ourt to set aside the ecision of &2 /ugust255 of the 9ourt of / eals in 9"/"%G"1" 9@ No" ( 03 & and its 1esolution of 5 October 255 3 !hich,

res ecti$ely, a rmed the Order of #ranch 32 of the 1egional *rial 9ourt of Oriental indoro, 8ourth Cudicial1egion, of ) Cune 25) ' granting the etition of ri$ate res ondent for the reconstitution of the originaland the o!nerFs du licate co ies of a transfer certi>cate of title des ite lac- of ser$ice of notices toadjoining o!ners and the actual occu ants of the land, and denied etitionerFs motion for thereconsideration of the ecision" (

*he iss e in t is )etition is 8 et er notices to ad9oinin o8ners and t e act a" occ )ants of t e "and are /andator+ and 9 risdictiona" in 9 dicia" reconstit tion of certi;cates of tit"e.

On ' No$ember 250 ri$ate res ondent, claiming to be one of the heirs of ; ifania /lcano, registeredo!ner of a arcel of land located in 9anubing, 9ala an, Oriental indoro, containing an area of 33,&2'square meters, and co$ered by *ransfer 9erti>cate of *itle No" *%0060& in the 1egistry of eeds of 9ala an,Oriental indoro, >led a etition for the reconstitution of Athe original and du licate co y Esic=A of the said

*ransfer 9erti>cate of *itle on the basis of the o!nerFs du licate co y" 0 7he alleged therein that she is inossession Aof the title subject matter ofA the etition but she, ho!e$er, did not allege the reason !hy she

as-ed for the reconstitution"

In its Order of ' No$ember 250 the trial court set the etition for hearing and required its ublication inthe O cial Gazette, !hich !as done" 1equired notices, e4ce t to the adjoining o!ners and the actualoccu ants of the land, !ere gi$en"


9/34

on rior authority of the trial court, rece tion of ri$ate res ondentFs e$idence !as made by the OI9%#ranch 9ler- of 9ourt" *hereafter, on ) Cune 25), the trial court handed do!n an Order ) !hich madethe follo!ing >ndings of facts:

8rom the e$idence adduced by the etitioner, it a ears that she is one of the $endees of a certain arcelof land situated in alamig, 9ala an, Oriental indoro, containing an area of 33,&2' square meters,embraced in and co$ered by *ransfer 9erti>cate of *itle No" *%0060& and registered in the name of ; ifania/lcano E;4h" A#A= as e$idenced by a document of sale e4ecuted by the registered o!ner E;4h" AIA=" *heoriginal co y of said title !hich !as usually -e t in the O ce of the 1egister of eeds of this ro$ince !asdestroyed by reason of the >re !hich razed to the ground the entire 9a itol #uilding then housing saido ce on /ugust &, 2)) E;4h" A9A=" It a ears further that there are no co%o!nerFs, mortgageeFs, lesseeFsdu licate co y of said certi>cate of title !hich had been re$iously issued by the 1egister of eeds of this

ro$inceL that the etitioner is in actual ossession of the area of 0,0') square meters !hich !as sold toher and that she is bene>ting from the roduce of the im ro$ements e4isting on the area belonging to her"

and disquisition:

/ccordingly, >nding the instant etition to be !ell%founded and there being no o osition to its a ro$al,same is hereby granted" *he 1egister of eeds of this ro$ince is hereby directed to reconstitute theoriginal and the o!nerFs du licate co ies of *ransfer 9erti>cate of *itle No" *%0060& in the name of theregistered o!ners Esic= thirty days after recei t of this Order by the 1egister of eeds of this ro$ince andthe 9ommissioner of the +and 1egistration 9ommission, on the basis of the e4isting o!nerFs du licate co ythereof"

Petitioner herein, through the O ce of the 7olicitor General, a ealed from said Order to the 9ourt of / eals and made the follo!ing assignment of errors:

I *H; *1I/+ 9O 1* ;11; IN /9Q I1ING C 1I7 I9*ION O@;1 *H; IN7*/N* P;*I*ION 8O11;9ON7*I* *ION O8 *H; O1IGIN/+ /N *H; O?N;1F7 P+I9/*; 9OPI;7 O8 *9* NO" *%0060& ?I*HO *

*H; 1;Q I7I*; 7;1@I9; O8 NO*I9; O8 H;/1ING *O *H; / COINING O?N;17 /N /9* /+ O99 P/N*7 O8 *H; +/N /7 1;Q I1; #R 7;9*ION 3 O8 1;P #+I9 /9* NO" &0"

II *H; *1I/+ 9O 1* ;11; IN G1/N*ING *H; P;*I*ION 8O1 1;9ON7*I* *ION" 5

*he a eal !as doc-eted as 9"/"%G"1" 9@ No" ( 03"

In su ort of the >rst assigned error, etitioner maintained that the requirement of 7ection 3 of 1"/" No"&0 is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as held in ?77 $s" 7ison, et al", &' 791/ 32'"

In its ecision of &2 /ugust 255 2 res ondent 9ourt of / eals brushed aside the arguments of etitionerand held that:

= 7ection 3 of 1"/" No" &0 !hich Arequires the sending out of notices to the adjoining o!ners andactual occu ants to $est jurisdiction,A a ears to ha$e been Aat least im liedly amended by Presidential

ecree No" (&2A because it is inconsistent !ith 7ection &3 of said ecree !hich ro$ides that in originalregistration cases ublication of notices of initial hearing in the O cial Gazette is su cient to confer

jurisdiction on the court" 7ection 6 of said ecree ro$ides:

7ec" 6" 1econstitution of lost or destroyed original of *orrens *itle" SS Original co ies of certi>catesof title lost or destroyed in o ces of 1egister of eeds as !ell as liens and encumbrances aJecting suchtitles shall be reconstituted judicially in accordance !ith the rocedure rescribed in 1e ublic /ct No" &0insofar as not inconsistent !ith this ecree" Eem hasis su lied=

&= *he ?77 $s" 7ison case is not on all fours !ith the instant case for in the former both the originaland the o!nerFs du licate co ies of the certi>cate of title !ere claimed to be lost, unli-e in the instant case!here the du licate co y is intactL it !as not sho!n that the original co y in the custody of the 1egister of

eeds !as destroyedL the co ies of the titles alleged to ha$e been lost !ere later found intact in thenames of other ersonsL and, more im ortantly, the Petition !as not ublished in the O cial Gazette but inthe anila aily #ulletin, unli-e in the instant case"


10/34

3= *he duty to send notices to adjoining o!ners and actual occu ants is im osed u on the court, notthe arty >ling the etition for reconstitution Eherein ri$ate res ondent=L any la se in regard theretoshould not rejudice or injure the latter"

'= 8inally, in the instant case, the ri$ate res ondent cannot be blamed for the loss of the originalco y of the transfer certi>cate of titleL it !as lost by reason of the burning of the 9a itol #uildingL sheshould not, therefore, be ut to trouble, an4iety and e4 enses"

PetitionerFs motion to reconsider the ecision ha$ing been denied by the 9ourt of / eals in its 1esolutionof 5 October 255, etitioner >led the instant etition on && ecember 255 alleging therein that:

a" *he res ondent Honorable 9ourt of / eals acted contrary to la! !hen it did not consider that thetrial court is !ithout jurisdiction o$er the instant etition for reconstitution of the original o!ners Esic=du licate co ies of *9* No" 0060& as there is no requisite ser$ice of notice of hearing to the adjoiningo!ners and actual occu ants of the land as required by 7ection 3 of 1"/" No" &0L

b" *he res ondent Honorable 9ourt of / eals acted contrary to la! in granting the etition forreconstitution of the original and du licate co ies of *9* No" 0060&"

In Our resolution of 0 Canuary 252, 6 ?e required the res ondents to comment on the etition" Pri$ateres ondent >led her comment on 6 8ebruary 252" 7he ractically co ied therein the questioneddecision of res ondent 9ourt of / eals"

In Our resolution of ( arch 252 ?e ga$e due course to the etition and required the arties to submitsimultaneously their res ecti$e memoranda, !hich etitioner com lied !ith on 3 Culy 252 & and ri$ateres ondent on 6 Cune 252" 3

*he etition is im ressed !ith merit"

*he questioned ecision of &2 /ugust 255 and the 1esolution of 5 October 255 of res ondent 9ourt of / eals, as !ell as the Order of #ranch 32 of the 1egional *rial 9ourt of Oriental indoro of ) Cune 25),must be set aside"

7ection 3 of 1"/" No" &0 has not been altered, modi>ed or amended" 7ince the requirement therein of ser$ice of notice of the initial hearing to the adjoining o!ners and the actual occu ants of the land !as notcom lied !ith in this case, the court belo! did not, therefore, acquire jurisdiction o$er the etition for thereconstitution of *ransfer 9erti>cate of *itle No" 0060&" /ccordingly, the res ondent 9ourt of / ealsgra$ely erred in a rming the Order of the trial court granting the etition and in holding that said 7ection

3 has been Aat least im liedly amendedA by 7ection &3 in relation to 7ection 6 of P" " No" (&2 !hichtoo- eJect on Cune 2)5"

In irector of +ands $s" 9ourt of / eals, et al", ' ?e ruled that the requirements of 7ection & and7ection 3 of 1"/" No" &0 reading as follo!s:

7ec" &" Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in sections & Ec=, & Ed=, & Ee=, & Ef=, 3 Ec=,3 Ee= and.or 3 Ef= of this /ct, shall be >led !ith the ro er 9ourt of 8irst Instance, by the registered o!ner,his assigns, or any erson ha$ing an interest in the ro erty" *he etition shall state or contain, amongother things, the follo!ing: Ea= that the o!nerFs du licate of the certi>cate of title had been lost ordestroyedL Eb= that no co%o!nerFs mortgageeFs or lesseeFs du licate had been issued, or, if any had beenissued, the same had been lost or destroyedL Ec= the location, area and boundaries of the ro ertyL Ed= thenature and descri tion of the buildings or im ro$ements, if any, !hich do not belong to the o!ner of theland, and the names and addresses of the o!ners of such buildings or im ro$ementsL Ee= the names andaddresses of the occu ants or ersons in ossession of the ro erty, of the o!ners of the adjoining

ro erties and of all ersons !ho may ha$e any interest in the ro ertyL Ef= a detailed descri tion of theencumbrances, if any, aJecting the ro ertyL and Eg= a statement that no deeds or other instrumentsaJecting the ro erty ha$e been resented for registration, or, if there be any, the registration thereof hasnot been accom lished, as yet" /ll the documents, or authenticated co ies thereof, to be introduced ine$idence in su ort of the etition for reconstitution shall be attached thereto and >led !ith the same:Pro$ided, *hat in case the reconstitution is to be made e4clusi$ely from sources enumerated in section &Ef= or 3 Ef= of this /ct, the etition shall be further accom anied !ith a lan and technical descri tion of the


11/34

ro erty duly a ro$ed by the 9hief of the General +and 1egistration O ce, or !ith a certi>ed co y of thedescri tion ta-en from a rior certi>cate of title co$ering the same ro erty"

7ec" 3" *he court shall cause a notice of etition, >led under the receding section, to be ublished,at the e4 ense of the etition, t!ice in successi$e issues of the O cial Gazette, and to be osted on themain entrance of the ro$incial building and of the munici al building of the munici ality or city in !hichthe land is situated, at least thirty days rior to the date of hearing" *he court shall li-e!ise cause a co yof the notice to be sent, by registered mail or other!ise, at the e4 ense of the etitioner, to e$ery ersonnamed therein !hose address is -no!n, at least thirty days rior to the date of hearing" 7aid notice shallstate, among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed certi>cates of title, if -no!n, the name of the registered o!ner, the name of the occu ants or erson in ossession of the ro erty, the o!ner of theadjoining ro erties and all other interested arties, the location, area and boundaries of the ro erty, andthe date on !hich all ersons ha$ing any interest therein must a ear and >le their claim or objection tothe etition" *he etitioner shall, at the hearing, submit roof of the ublication, osting and ser$ice of thenotice as directed by the court"

are mandatory and jurisdictional and non%com liance there!ith !ould render all roceedings utterly nulland $oid" ?e reiterated this rule in *ahanan e$elo ment 9or " $s" 9ourt of / eals, et al" ( !here, inres ect articularly to the required notice to an adjoining o!ner, ?e categorically declared:

*he failure or omission to notify *ahanan as the o!ner, ossessor or occu ant of ro erty adjacent to +ot &or as claimant or erson ha$ing interest, title or claim to a substantial ortion Eabout 2 hectares more orless= of +ot &, as !ell as the failure or omission to ost co ies of the Notice of Hearing on the mainentrance of the munici ality Esic= on !hich the land is situated, at the ro$incial building and at themunici al building thereat, are fatal to the acquisition and e4ercise of jurisdiction by the trial court"

In ?77 $s" 7ison et al", su ra", ?e further re%a rmed the foregoing doctrine:

*he ublication of the etition in t!o successi$e issues of the O cial Gazette, the ser$ice of the notice of hearing to the adjoining o!ners and actual occu ants of the land, as !ell as the osting of the notices inthe main entrance of the ro$incial and munici al buildings !here the ro erty lies at least 36 days riorto the date of the hearing, as rescribed by 7ection 3 of the la!, are mandatory and jurisdictionalrequisites"

*his re%a rmation is clear enough as to lea$e no room for any con$oluted logic to su ort a so histicdistinction bet!een said case and the instant case and an im lausible inter retation of the la!"

?e further >nd to be totally unfounded the $ie! of the 9ourt of / eals that 7ection 3 of 1"/" No" &0Aa ears to ha$e been at least im liedly amended by Presidential ecree No" (&2"A *here is absolutelynothing in P" " No" (&2 !hich intimates or suggests, indirectly or e$en remotely, an intention to amendsaid 7ection 3" *he 9ourt of / eals either misa rehended or read out of conte4t that ortion of 7ection&3 of P" " No" (&2 reading as follo!s:

" " " that the ublication in the O cial Gazette shall be su cient to confer jurisdiction u on the court"

?orse, it committed a serious blunder !hen it used this clause to su ort its ro osition of im liedamendment of 7ection 3 of 1"/" No" &0 by $irtue of 7ection 6 of the ecree"

7ection &3 of P" " No" (&2 is entitled Notice of initial hearing, ublication, etc" and ro$ides, inter alia,that:

*he ublic shall be gi$en notice of initial hearing of the a lication for land registration by means of E =ublicationL E&= mailingL and E3= osting"

/s regards ublication, it s eci>cally ro$ides:

on recei t of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing, the 9ommissioner of +and1egistration shall cause a notice of initial hearing to be ublished once in the O cial Gazette and once in ane!s a er of general circulation in the Phili ines: Pro$ided, ho!e$er, that the ublication in the O cialGazette shall be su cient to confer jurisdiction u on the court " " "


12/34

*his ro$iso !as ne$er meant to dis ense !ith the requirement of notice by mailing and by osting" ?hatit sim ly means is that in so far as ublication is concerned, there is su cient com liance if the notice is

ublished in the O cial Gazette, although the la! mandates that it be ublished Aonce in the O cialGazette and once in a ne!s a er of general circulation in the Phili ines"A Ho!e$er, ublication in thelatter alone !ould not su ce" *his is to accord rimacy to the o cial ublication"

*hat such ro$iso !as ne$er meant to dis ense !ith the other modes of gi$ing notice, !hich remainmandatory and jurisdictional, is ob$ious from 7ection &3 itself" If the intention of the la! !ere other!ise,said section !ould not ha$e stressed in detail the requirements of mailing of notices to all ersons namedin the etition !ho, er 7ection ( of the ecree, include o!ners of adjoining ro erties, and occu ants of the land"

*he abo$e $ie! of the 9ourt of / eals negates one of the rinci al ur oses of the ecree, !hich isclearly e4 ressed in its e4ordium, namely, to strengthen the *orrens 7ystem through safeguards to re$entanomalous titling of real ro erty" It o ens !ide the doors to fraud and irregularities in land registration

roceedings and in roceedings for the reconstitution of certi>cates of title" Cudicial notice may be ta-en of the fact that only $ery fe! ha$e access to or could read the O cial Gazette, !hich comes out in fe! co iesonly er issue" If ublication in the O cial Gazette of the notice of hearing in both roceedings !ould besu cient to confer jurisdiction u on the court, o!ners of both unregistered and registered lands maysomeday ainfully >nd out that others ha$e certi>cates of title to their land because scheming arties hadcaused their registration, or secured reconstituted certi>cates of title thereto and sold the ro erty to third

arties"

*he belabored argument of res ondent 9ourt of / eals that it !ould be unfair to im ose u on the ri$ateres ondent the duty to com ly !ith the requirement of ser$ice of notice because it !as not through herfault that the original co y of the *ransfer 9erti>cate of *itle !as lost is unacce table since the la! doesnot ma-e any e4ce tion or e4em tionsL besides, it is, to say the least, a ludicrous ro osition" ;quallyunacce table is the o inion of said 9ourt that it !as the duty of the trial court to ser$e the required noticesand ri$ate res ondent should not be rejudiced if it failed to do so" It suggests, quite unfortunately, andgi$es the !rong im ression that mandatory requirements of notices may be dis ensed !ith if the failure tocom ly !ith them is attributable to the court" It li-e!ise negates the rinci les of res onsibility, integrity,loyalty and e ciency !hich the 9onstitution directs ublic o cials and em loyees to faithfully obser$e" ?eshould stress here that la ses on the art of courts or their ersonnel cannot be made a reason or

justi>cation for non%obser$ance of la!s" #y the $ery nature of their functions, they should be the >rst toobey the la!s"

IN *H; +IGH* O8 *H; 8O1;GOING, judgment is hereby rendered G1/N*ING the instant etition and7;**ING /7I ; the ecision of &2 /ugust 255 and the 1esolution of 5 October 255 of res ondent 9ourtof / eals in 9"/"%G"1" 9@ No" ( 03 and the Order of #ranch No" 32 of the 1egional *rial 9ourt of Oriental

indoro, 8ourth Cudicial 1egion in Petition No" ,'(0"

9osts against ri$ate res ondent"

7O O1 ;1; "

8ernan, 9"C", Gutierrez, Cr", 8eliciano and #idin, CC", concur"

G"1" No" +%&26)( Cune 6, 2)A$$LICATI&' F&R R#4ISTRATI&' &F TITL#, #LDR#D F#


13/34

el>n de @era for o ositors%a ellees Nacita @asquez, et al"

1;R;7, C"#"+", C":

/ eal Ebefore 1e ublic /ct (''6= from the order of the 9ourt of 8irst Instance of /lbay EIn +and 1eg" 9aseNo" N%'3'=, dismissing an a lication for registration on jurisdictional grounds"

On & arch 20), ;ldred 8e!-e!s, an /merican citizen, commenced in the 9ourt of 8irst Instance of /lbaya roceeding for the registration of & lots and the im ro$ements thereon" It !as alleged in the a licationthat 8e!-es acquired by urchase from Cuan G" @elasco, Cr", #rigida 9" @elasco and *rinidad G" @elasco t!oE&= arcels of land, referred to as +ot No" & %/ of Psu%0 ')6 Ea ortion of +ot No" 353, +ibon P+s%)03 =,!ith an area of &&3, &' square meters more or less, and +ot !ith an area of ,&53 square meters,situated in barrio #ubulusan E#ulusan=, munici ality of +ibon, ro$ince of /lbayL that a licant !as inactual ossession of the lots, and that said ro erties !ere free from any encumbrance" /ttached to thea lication !ere the tracing cloth and blue rint of lans Psu%0 ')6 and the corres onding technicaldescri tions of +ots & %/ and & %# of Psu%0 ')6, the certi>ed co ies of the ta4 declarations on said land,and the t!o deeds of absolute sale dated &6 Cune 200 and &) Canuary 20), e4ecuted by the @elascos infa$or of a licant"

On 3 arch 20), >nding that the a lication did not contain the lans and technical descri tion of the

arcels of land sought to be registered and the sur$eyorFs certi>cate, the court required the a licant tosubmit the same" on com liance !ith the foregoing requirement, the a licant then submitted a motionraying the court that the irector of +ands and.or the +and 1egistration 9ommission be directed to

a ro$e subdi$ision lan Psu%0 ')6, !herein it a eared that the lots sought to be registered are arts of a bigger lot identi>ed in said subdi$ision lan as +ot No" & "

In its order of &5 / ril 20), the court denied the motion reasoning that the a lication being forregistration of land, it had nothing to do !ith the a ro$al of the subdi$ision lan" On & /ugust 20), thecourt issued another order, this time for amendment of the a lication in order to include the res ecti$e

ostal addresses of the adjoining o!ners named therein"

On &3 8ebruary 205, after the initial hearing of case, the court issued an order dismissing the a licationfor !arrant of jurisdiction, based on the >nding that the ro erties sought to be registered only formed

art of a bigger tract, of land !hich !as described in the lan attached to the a lication, and that thenotice of initial hearing did not delineate accurately the ortions of the land in$ol$ed in the registration

roceeding" ?hen the motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid dismissal%order !as denied, a licant>led the resent a eal"

/ ellantFs com laint in this instance actually is directed against the outright dismissal of the a lication"It is not denied that !hat !as ublished in the O cial Gazette at a licantFs e4 ense, !as not thedescri tion of the t!o lots subject of the registration roceeding but that of a bigger arcel of landidenti>ed as +ot No" 353 of +ibon Pls%)03% referred to as +ot No" & of Psu%0 ')6=" It is here contended,ho!e$er, that since the ublished descri tion includes the motions being registered, then the court belo!erred in declaring itself !ithout jurisdiction o$er the roceeding" In other !ords, according to a ellant, asthe descri tion of the bigger arcel, 353 of Pls%)0'% , of !hich the ro erties sought to be registeredformed art, !as already ublished, then there !ould ha$e been no necessity for further ublication of theaforesaid small ortions in order to $est jurisdiction on the land registration court" *he Ka! in thisargument lies in the assum tion that by the ublication of the bigger tract of land, jurisdiction o$er thesaid ro erty !as acquired by the court belo!" *hat is not correct"

nder 7ection & of the +and 1egistration /ct an a lication for registration of land is required to contain,among others, a descri tion of the land subject of the roceeding, the name, status and address of thea licant, as !ell as the names and addresses of all occu ants of the land and of all adjoining o!ners, if -no!n, or if un-no!n, of the ste s ta-en to locate them" ?hen the a lication is set by the court for initialhearing, it is then that notice Eof the hearing=, addressed to all ersons a earing to ha$e an interest inthe lot being registered and the adjoining o!ners, and indicating the location, boundaries and technicaldescri tion of the land being registered, & shall be ublished in the O cial Gazette for t!o consecuti$etimes" It is this ublication of the notice of hearing that is considered one of the essential bases of the

jurisdiction of the court in land registration cases, 3 for the roceedings being in rem, it is only !hen there


14/34

is constructi$e seizure of the land, eJected by the ublication and notice, that jurisdiction o$er the res is$ested on the court" 8urthermore, it is such notice and ublication of the hearing that !ould enable all

ersons concerned, !ho may ha$e any rights or interests in the ro erty, to come for!ard and sho! to thecourt !hy the a lication for registration thereof is not to be granted"

It must be remembered that the a lication in this case >led in the court belo! !as for registration, not of the big arcel of land E+ot No" 353, Pls%)0'% or +ot No" & =, but of certain ortions thereof designated bya licant%a ellant as +ots Nos" & %/ and & %#" It is the technical descri tion of these & smaller lots,therefore, that must be ublished in order that the ersons !ho may be aJected by their registration maybe noti>ed thereof" 8or, considering that the adjoining o!ners of +ot No" & !ould not be the same as theo!ners of the ro erties adjoining +ots Nos" & %/ and & %#, the noti>cation of the adjoining o!ners of thebig lot !ould not be the notice to the adjoining o!ners or occu ants of the smolder lots required by la!" Inshort, it is the ublication of the s eci>c boundaries of +ots Nos" & %/ and & %# that !ould actually ut theinterested arties on notice of the registration roceeding, and !ould confer authority on the landregistration court to ass u on the issue of the registerability of said lots in fa$or of the a licant"

/ ellant insists, ho!e$er, that the lo!er court should ha$e merely directed the amendment of thea lication or the a ro$al by the irector of +ands of the subdi$ision lan, instead of issuing an order of dismissal" *here is no merit in this contention" 9onsidering that it has been dully a rised of the absenceof the requisite sur$ey lan and the technical descri tion of the lots being registered" and of theinadequacy of the necessary ublication and notice to the interested arties, and consequently of thee4istence of jurisdictional defects in the a lication, the lo!er court could not ha$e ta-en any other courseof action than to order the dismissal of the case" In ;scueta $s" irector of +ands, 0 Phil" '5&, this 9ourtruled:

FIt is not ermissible to ma-e amendments or alterations in the descri tion of the land after its ublicationin the ne!s a ers and after the registration of the ro erty has been decreed, !ithout the ublication of ne! noti>cations and ad$ertisements ma-ing -no!n to e$eryone the said alterations and amendments"Other!ise, the la! !ould be infringed !ith res ect to the ublicity !hich characterizes the rocedure, andthird arties !ho ha$e not had an o ortunity to resent their claims, might be seriously aJected in theirrights, through failure of o ortune notice"F

Nor !as the court belo! technically quali>ed to declare the subdi$ision lan true and correct, and com elits a ro$al by the land authorities"

It may e$en be ointed out that on t!o occasions, the lo!er court had already directed a ellantFs counselto submit necessary anne4es and amend the a lication" It can not really be charged, therefore, that saidcourt had been unfair or unduly harsh on the a licant%a ellant !hen, >nding the a lication to be stillfatally defecti$e, it ordered the dismissal of the case"

?H;1;8O1;, >nding no error in the order a ealed from, the same is hereby a rmed, !ith costs againstthe a ellant" *he dismissal of the a lication here is understood to be !ithout, rejudice to the >ling of a

ro er a lication in conformity !ith the legal requirements"

9once cion, 9"C", izon, a-alintal, Ualdi$ar, 8ernando, *eehan-ee, #arredo and a-asiar, CC", concur"

9astro and @illamor, CC", too- no art"

G"1" No" 65225 /ugust &', 22'

R#$%BLIC &F T!# $!ILI$$I'#S, )etitioner,vs.T!# C&%RT &F A$$#ALS A'D S$&%S#S ARI& B. LA$I@A A'D FL&R D# 0#4A, res)ondents.

B+ron 0. Be"ar/ino and an B. Be"ar/ino for )rivate res)ondents.

#I IN, C":


15/34


16/34

ri$ately o!ned land, for in the same roceeding, the court may declare it ublic land, de ending on thee$idence"

/s found by the trial court:

*he e$idence thus resented established that a licants, by themsel$es and their redecessors%in%interest,had been in o en, ublic, eaceful, continuous, e4clusi$e and notorious ossession and occu ation of thet!o adjacent arcels of land a lied for registration of title under a bona%>de claim of o!nershi longbefore Cune &, 2'(" 7uch being the case, it is conclusi$ely resumed that all the conditions essential tothe con>rmation of their title o$er the t!o adjacent arcels of land are sought to be registered ha$e beencom lied !ith thereby entitling them to the issuance of the corres onding certi>cate of title ursuant tothe ro$isions of Presidential ecree No" (&2, other!ise -no!n as the Pro erty 1egistration ecree"E1ollo, " &0=

1es ondent court echoed the court a quoFs obser$ation, thus:

*he land sought to be registered has been declared to be !ithin the alienable and dis osable zoneestablished by the #ureau of 8orest e$elo ment E;4hibit APA=" *he in$estigation conducted by the #ureauof +ands, Natural 1esources istrict EI@%&= re$eals that the dis uted realty had been occu ied by thea licants A!hose house of strong materials stands thereonAL that it had been declared for ta4ation

ur oses in the name of a licants%s ouses since 2)2L that they acquired the same by means of a ublicinstrument entitled AMasulatan ng #ilihang *uluyanA duly e4ecuted by the $endor, 9risteta azo #elen, on

Cune ), 2)5 E;4hibits AIA and ACA=L and that a licants and their redecessors in interest had been inossession of the land for more than 36 years rior to the >ling of the a lication for registration" #ut !hat

is of great signi>cance in the instant case is the circumstance that at the time the a licants urchasedthe subject lot in 2)5, both of them !ere 8ili ino citizens such that !hen they >led their a lication forregistration in 25), o!nershi o$er the land in dis ute had already assed to them" E1ollo, ", &)=

*he 1e ublic disagrees !ith the a ellate courtFs conce t of ossession and argues:

)" *he 9ourt of / eals found that the land !as declared for ta4ation ur oses in the name of res ondent s ouses only since 2)2" Ho!e$er, ta4 declarations or reality ta4 ayments of ro erty are notconclusi$e e$idence of o!nershi " Eciting cases=

5" *hen again, the a ellate court found that Aa licants Eres ondents= and their redecessors%in%interest had been in ossession of the land for more than 36 years rior to the >ling of the a lication forregistration"A *his is not, ho!e$er, the same as saying that res ondents ha$e been in ossession Asince

Cune &, 2'("A EP No" 6)3, amending 7ec" '5 BbD, 9/ NO" ' L sec" also 7ec" ', P No" (&2=" 7o thereis a $oid in res ondentsF ossession" *hey fall short of the required ossession since Cune &, 2'( or riorthereto" /nd, e$en if they needed only to ro$e thirty E36= years ossession rior to the >ling of theira lication Eon 8ebruary (, 25)=, they !ould still be short of the required ossession if the starting ointis 2)2 !hen, according to the 9ourt of / eals, the land !as declared for ta4ation ur oses in theirname" E1ollo, " '% (=

*he argument is myo ic, to say the least" 8ollo!ing the logic of etitioner, any transferee is thus foreclosedto a ly for registration of title o$er a arcel of land not!ithstanding the fact that the transferor, or his

redecessor%in%interest has been in o en, notorious and e4clusi$e ossession thereof for thirty E36= yearsor more" *his is not, ho!e$er, !hat the la! ro$ides"

/s etitioner itself argues, 7ection '5 of the Public +and /ct E9/ ' = reads:

7ec" '5" *he follo!ing%described citizens of the Phili ines, occu ying lands of the ublic domain orclaiming interest therein, but !hose titles ha$e not been erfected or com leted, may a ly to the 9ourtof 8irst Instance Eno! 1egional *rial 9ourt= of the ro$ince !here the land is located for con>rmation of their claims and the issuance of a certi>cate of title therefor under the +and 1egistration /ct, to !it:

444 444 444

Eb= *hose !ho by themsel$es or through their redecessors%in%interest ha$e been in o en, continuous,e4clusi$e, and notorious ossession and occu ation of agricultural lands of the ublic domain, under abona >de claim of acquisition or o!nershi , for at least thirty years immediately receding the >ling of the


17/34

a lication for con>rmation of title e4ce t !hen re$ented by !ars or force majeure" *hese shall beconclusi$ely resumed to ha$e erformed all the conditions essential to a Go$ernment grant and shall beentitled to a certi>cate of title under the ro$isions of this cha ter" E;m hasis su lied=

/s amended by P 6)3:

7ec" '" *he ro$isions of 7ection '5Eb= and 7ection '5Ec=, 9ha ter @III, of the Public +and /ct arehereby amended in the sense that these ro$isions shall a ly only to alienable and dis osable lands of the ublic domain !hich ha$e been in o en, continuous, e4clusi$e and notorious ossession andoccu ation by the a licant himself or thru his redecessor%in%interest, under a bona >de claim of acquisition or o!nershi , since Cune &, 2'("

It must be noted that !ith res ect to ossession and occu ation of the alienable and dis osable lands of the ublic domain, the la! em loys the terms Aby themsel$esA, Athe a licant himself or through his

redecessor%in%interestA" *hus, it matters not !hether the $endee.a licant has been in ossession of thesubject ro erty for only a day so long as the eriod and.or legal requirements for con>rmation of title hasbeen com lied !ith by his redecessor%in%interest, the said eriod is tac-ed to his ossession" In the caseat bar, res ondentsF redecessors%in%interest ha$e been in o en, continuous, e4clusi$e and notorious

ossession of the dis uted land not only since Cune &, 2'(, but e$en as early as 23)" Petitioner doesnot deny this e4ce t that res ondent s ouses, in its erce tion, !ere in ossession of the land sought tobe registered only in 2)5 and therefore short of the required length of time" /s aforesaid, the dis uted

arcels of land !ere acquired by ri$ate res ondents through their redecessors%in%interest, !ho, in turn,ha$e been in o en and continued ossession thereof since 23)" Pri$ate res ondents ste ed into theshoes of their redecessors%in%interest and by $irtue thereof, acquired all the legal rights necessary tocon>rm !hat could other!ise be deemed as an im erfect title"

/t this juncture, etitionerFs reliance in 1e ublic $" @illanue$a E ' 791/ 5)( B 25&D= deser$es scantconsideration" *here, it !as held that before the issuance of the certi>cate of title, the occu ant is not inthe juridical sense the true o!ner of the land since it still ertains to the 7tate"

7u ce it to state that the ruling in 1e ublic $" @illanue$a Esu ra=, has already been abandoned in the 250case of irector of +ands $" Intermediate / ellate 9ourt E '0 791/ (62L and reiterated in irector of +ands $" Iglesia ni 9risto, &66 791/ 060 B 22 D= !here the 9ourt, through then /ssociate Custice, no! 9hief

Custice Nar$asa, declared that:

E*he !eight of authority is= that o en, e4clusi$e and undis uted ossession of alienable ublic land for theeriod rescribed by la! creates the legal >ction !hereby the land, u on com letion of the requisite eriod

i so jure and !ithout the need of judicial or other sanction, ceases to be ublic land and becomes ri$atero erty" " " "

Herico in articular, a ears to be squarely a rmati$e:

" " " 7econdly, under the ro$isions of 1e ublic /ctNo" 2'&, !hich the res ondent 9ourt held to be ina licable to the etitionerFs case, !ith the latterFs

ro$en occu ation and culti$ation for more than 36 years since 2 ', by himself and by his redecessors%in%interest, title o$er the land has $ested on etitioner so as to segregate the land from the mass of ublicland" *hereafter, it is no longer dis osable under the Public +and /ct as by free atent " " "

444 444 444

/s inter reted in se$eral cases, !hen the conditions as s eci>ed in the foregoing ro$ision are com lied!ith, the ossessor is deemed to ha$e acquired, by o eration of la!, a right to a grant, a go$ernmentgrant, !ithout the necessity of a certi>cate of title being issued" *he land, therefore, ceases to be of the

ublic domain and beyond the authority of the irector of +ands to dis ose of" *he a lication forcon>rmation is mere formality, the lac- of !hich does not aJect the legal su ciency of the title as !ouldbe e$idenced by the atent and the *orrens title to be issued u on the strength of said atent"

Nothing can more clearly demonstrate the logical ine$itability of considering ossession of ublic land!hich is of the character and duration rescribed by the statute as the equi$alent of an e4 ress grant fromthe 7tate than the dictum of the statute itself E7ection '5 BbD= that the ossessorEs= A" " " shall beconclusi$ely resumed to ha$e erformed all the conditions essential to a Go$ernment grant and shall be


18/34

entitled to a certi>cate of title """A No roof being admissible to o$ercome a conclusi$e resum tion,con>rmation roceedings !ould, in truth be little more than a formality, at the most limited to ascertaining!hether the ossession claims is of the required character and length of timeL and registration thereunder!ould not confer title, but sim ly recognize a title already $ested" *he roceedings !ould not originallycon$ert the land from ublic to ri$ate land, but only con>rm such a con$ersion already aJected byo eration of la! from the moment the required eriod of ossession became com lete" /s !as so !ell utin 9ari o, A" " "E*here are indications that registration !as e4 ected from all, but none su cient to sho!that, for !ant of it, o!nershi actually gained !ould be lost" *he eJect of the roof, !here$er made, !asnot to confer title, but sim ly to establish it, as already conferred by the decree, if not by earlier la!"E;m hasis su lied=

7ubsequent cases ha$e he!ed to the abo$e ronouncement such that o en, continuous and e4clusi$eossession for at least 36 years of alienable ublic land i so jure con$erts the same to ri$ate ro erty

E irector of +ands $" I/9, & ' 791/ 06' B 22&DL Pineda $" 9/, 53 791/ 06& B 226D=" *his means thatoccu ation and culti$ation for more than 36 years by an a licant and his redecessors%in%interest, $esttitle on such a licant so as to segregate the land from the mass of ublic and ENational Po!er 9or oration$" 9/, & 5 791/ ' B 223D="

*he Public +and /ct requires that the a licant must ro$e that Ea= the land is alienable ublic land and Eb=his ossession, in the conce t abo$e stated, must be either since time immemorial or for the eriod

rescribed in the Public +and /ct E irector of +ands $" #uyco, & 0 791/ )5 B 22&D=" ?hen the conditionsset by la! are com lied !ith, the ossessor of the land, by o eration of la!, acquires a right to a grant, ago$ernment grant, !ithout the necessity of a certi>cate of title being issued ENational Po!er 9or oration $"9/, su ra=" /s such, the land ceases to be a art of the ublic domain and goes beyond the authority of the irector of +ands to dis ose of"

In other !ords, the *orrens system !as not established as a means for the acquisition of title to ri$ateland E unici ality of @ictorias $" 9/, '2 791/ 3& B 25)D=" It merely con>rms, but does not confero!nershi " /s could be gleaned from the e$idence adduced, ri$ate res ondents !ere able to establishthe nature of ossession of their redecessors%in%interest" ;$idence !as oJered to ro$e that their

redecessors%in%interest had aid ta4es on the subject land and introduced im ro$ements thereonE;4hibits A8A to A82A=" / certi>ed true co y of the a da$it e4ecuted by 9risteta azo and her sister7im licia !as also formally oJered to ro$e that the subject arcels of land !ere inherited by $endor9risteta azo from her father Pedro azo !ith the conformity of her only sister 7im licia E;4hibit AGA="+i-e!ise, a re ort from the #ureau of +ands !as resented in e$idence together !ith a letter from the#ureau of 8orest e$elo ment, to ro$e that the questioned lots !ere art of the alienable and dis osablezone of the go$ernment and that no forestry interest !as aJected E9/ G1 No" &52(3, 1ecords, " 33="

In the main, etitioner see-s to defeat res ondentsF a lication for registration of title on the ground of foreign nationality" /ccordingly, the ruling in irector of +ands $" #uyco Esu ra= su orts etitionerFs thesis"

?e disagree"

In #uyco, the a licants therein !ere li-e!ise foreign nationals but !ere natural%born 8ili ino citizens atthe time of their su osed acquisition of the ro erty" #ut this is !here the similarity ends" *he a licantsin #uyco sought to register a large tract of land under the ro$isions of the +and 1egistration /ct, and inthe alternati$e, under the ro$isions of the Public +and /ct" *he land registration court decided in fa$or of the a licants and !as a rmed by the a ellate court on a eal" *he irector of +ands brought thematter before us on re$ie! and !e re$ersed"

*his 9ourt, s ea-ing through Custice a$ide, Cr", stated:

/s could be gleaned from the e$idence adduced, the ri$ate res ondents do not rely on fee sim leo!nershi based on a 7 anish grant or ossessory information title under 7ection 2 of the +and1egistration /ctL the ri$ate res ondents did not resent any roof that they or their redecessors%in%interest deri$ed title from an old 7 anish grant such as Ea= the Atitulo realA or royal grant Eb= theAconcession es ecialA or es ecial grantL Ec= the Acom osicion con el estadoA title or adjustment titleL Ed=the Atitulo de com raA or title by urchaseL and Ee= the Ainformacion osesoriaA or ossessory informationtitle, !hich could become a Atitulo gratuitoA or a gratuitous title E irector of 8orestry $" u oz, &3 791/

53 B 205D=" *he rimary basis of their claim is ossession, by themsel$es and their redecessors%in%interest, since time immemorial"


19/34

If indeed ri$ate res ondents and their redecessors ha$e been in ossession since time immemorial, therulings of both courts could be u held for, as this 9ourt stated in Oh 9ho $" irector of +ands E)( Phil" 526B 2'0D=:

" " " /ll lands that !ere not acquired from the Go$ernment, either by urchase or by grant, belong to theublic domain" /n e4ce tion to the rule !ould be any land that should ha$e been in the ossession of an

occu ant and of his redecessors in interest since time immemorial, for such ossession !ould justify theresum tion that the land had ne$er been art of the ublic domain or that if had been a ri$ate ro erty

e$en before the 7 anish conquest E9ari o $" Insular Go$ernment, ' Phil 23( B 262DL & & "7" ''2L (3 +a!";d", (2'= *he a licant does not come under the e4ce tion, for the earliest ossession of the lot by his >rst

redecessor in interest began in 556"

" " " alienable ublic land held by a ossessor, ersonally or through his redecessors%in%interest, o enly,continuously and e4clusi$ely for the rescribed statutory eriod E36 years under the Public +and /ct, asamended= is con$erted to ri$ate ro erty by the mere la se or com letion of said eriod, i so jure"E irector of +ands $" Intermediate / ellate 9ourt, su ra=

It is ob$ious from the foregoing rule that the a licant must ro$e that Ea= the land is alienable ublic landand Eb= his ossession, in the conce t abo$e stated, must be either since time immemorial, as ruled inboth 9ari o and 7usi, or for the eriod rescribed in the Public +and /ct" /s to the latter, this 9ourt, inGutierrez Hermanos $" 9ourt of / eals E )5 791/ 3) B 252D=, ado ted the rule enunciated by the 9ourt of / eals, er then /ssociate Custice Hugo 1" Gutierrez, Cr", " " ", that an a licant for registration under7ection '5 of the Public +and /ct must secure a certi>cation from the Go$ernment that the lands !hich heclaims to ha$e ossessed as o!ner for more than thirty E36= years are alienable and dis osable" It is theburden of the a licant to ro$e its ositi$e a$erments"

In the instant case, ri$ate res ondents oJered no e$idence at all to ro$e that the ro erty subject of thea lication is an alienable and dis osable land" On the contrary, the entire ro erty " " " !as asture landEand therefore inalienable under the then 2)3 9onstitution="

" " " EP=ri$ate res ondentsF e$idence miserably failed to establish their im erfect title to the ro erty inquestion" *heir allegation of ossession since time immemorial, " " ", is atently baseless" " " " ?henreferring to ossession, s eci>cally Aimmemorial ossession,A it means ossession of !hich no man li$inghas seen the beginning, and the e4istence of !hich he has learned from his elders E7usi $" 1azon, su ra="7uch ossession !as ne$er resent in the case of ri$ate res ondents" " " "

" " ", there does not e$en e4ist a reasonable basis for the >nding that the ri$ate res ondents and theirredecessors%in%interest ossessed the land for more than eighty E56= years, " " "

444 444 444

*o this 9ourtFs mind, ri$ate res ondents failed to ro$e that Etheir redecessor%in%interest= had ossessedthe ro erty allegedly co$ered by *a4 eclaration No" (5(3 and made the subject of both his last !ill andtestament and the roject of artition of his estate among his heirs in such manner as to remo$e thesame from the ublic domain under the 9ari o and 7usi doctrines" *hus, E!hen the redecessor%in%interest=died on 3 ay 23), he transmitted no right !hatsoe$er, !ith res ect to the said ro erty, to his heirs"

*his being the case, his ossession cannot be tac-ed to that of the ri$ate res ondents for the latterFsbene>t ursuant to 7ection '5Eb= of the Public +and /ct, the alternati$e ground relied u on in theira lication " " "

444 444 444

9onsidering that the ri$ate res ondents became /merican citizens before such >ling, it goes !ithoutsaying that they had acquired no $ested right, consisting of an im erfect title, o$er the ro erty beforethey lost their Phili ine citizenshi " E;m hasis su lied=

9learly, the a lication in #uyco !ere denied registration of title not merely because they !ere /mericancitizens at the time of their a lication therefor" 1es ondents therein failed to ro$e ossession of their

redecessor%in%interest since time immemorial or ossession in such a manner that the ro erty has been


20/34

segregated from ublic domainL such that at the time of their a lication, as /merican citizens, they ha$eacquired no $ested rights o$er the arcel of land"

In the case at bar, ri$ate res ondents !ere undoubtedly natural%born 8ili ino citizens at the time of theacquisition of the ro erties and by $irtue thereof, acquired $ested rights thereon, tac-ing in the rocess,the ossession in the conce t of o!ner and the rescribed eriod of time held by their redecessors%in%interest under the Public +and /ct" In addition, ri$ate res ondents ha$e constructed a house of strongmaterials on the contested ro erty, no! occu ied by res ondent +a i as mother"

#ut !hat should not be missed in the dis osition of this case is the fact that the 9onstitution itself allo!sri$ate res ondents to register the contested arcels of land in their fa$or" 7ections ) and 5 of /rticle VII of

the 9onstitution contain the follo!ing ertinent ro$isions, to !it:

7ec" )" 7a$e in cases of hereditary succession, no ri$ate lands shall be transferred or con$eyed e4ce t toindi$iduals, cor orations, or associations quali>ed to acquire or hold lands of the ublic domain"

7ec" 5" Not!ithstanding the ro$isions of 7ection ) of this /rticle, a natural%born citizen of the Phili ines!ho has lost his Phili ine citizenshi may be a transferee of ri$ate lands, subject to limitations ro$idedby la!" E;m hasis su lied=

7ection 5, /rticle VII of the 25) 9onstitution abo$e quoted is similar to 7ection (, /rticle VI@ of the then2)3 9onstitution !hich reads:

7ec" (" Not!ithstanding the ro$isions of 7ection ' of this /rticle, a natural%born citizen of thePhili ines !ho has lost his citizenshi may be a transferee of ri$ate land, for use by him as his residence,as the #atasang Pambansa may ro$ide"

Pursuant thereto, #atas Pambansa #lg" 5( !as assed into la!, the rele$ant ro$ision of !hich ro$ides:

7ec" &" /ny natural%born citizen of the Phili ines !ho has lost his Phili ine citizenshi and !hohas the legal ca acity to enter into a contract under Phili ine la!s may be a transferee of a ri$ate landu to a ma4imum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in thecase of rural land, to be used by him as his residence" In the case of married cou les, one of them maya$ail of the ri$ilege herein grantedL Pro$ided, *hat if both shall a$ail of the same, the total area acquiredshall not e4ceed the ma4imum herein >4ed"

In case the transferee already o!ns urban or rural lands for residential ur oses, he shall still be entitled tobe a transferee of an additional urban or rural lands for residential ur oses !hich, !hen added to thosealready o!ned by him, shall not e4ceed the ma4imum areas herein authorized"

8rom the ado tion of the 25) 9onstitution u to the resent, no other la! has been assed by thelegislature on the same subject" *hus, !hat go$erns the dis osition of ri$ate lands in fa$or of a natural%born 8ili ino citizen !ho has lost his Phili ine citizenshi remains to be #P 5("

;$en if ri$ate res ondents !ere already 9anadian citizens at the time they a lied for registration of thero erties in question, said ro erties as discussed abo$e !ere already ri$ate landsL consequently, there

could be no legal im ediment for the registration thereof by res ondents in $ie! of !hat the 9onstitutionordains" *he arcels of land sought to be registered no longer form art of the ublic domain" *hey arealready ri$ate in character since ri$ate res ondentsF redecessors%in%interest ha$e been in o en,continuous and e4clusi$e ossession and occu ation thereof under claim of o!nershi rior to Cune &,

2'( or since 23)" *he la! ro$ides that a natural%born citizen of the Phili ines !ho has lost hisPhili ine citizenshi may be a transferee of a ri$ate land u to a ma4imum area of ,666 sq"m", if urban,or one E = hectare in case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence E#P 5(="

It is undis uted that ri$ate res ondents, as $endees of a ri$ate land, !ere natural%born citizens of thePhili ines" 8or the ur ose of transfer and.or acquisition of a arcel of residential land, it is not signi>cant!hether ri$ate res ondents are no longer 8ili ino citizens at the time they urchased or registered the

arcels of land in question" ?hat is im ortant is that ri$ate res ondents !ere formerly natural%borncitizens of the Phili ines, and as transferees of a ri$ate land, they could a ly for registration inaccordance !ith the mandate of 7ection 5, /rticle VII of the 9onstitution" 9onsidering that ri$ate


21/34

res ondents !ere able to ro$e the requisite eriod and character of ossession of their redecessors%in%interest o$er the subject lots, their a lication for registration of title must erforce be a ro$ed"

*he dissenting o inion, ho!e$er, states that the requirements in #P 5(, must also be com lied !ith byri$ate res ondents" 7 eci>cally, it refers to 7ection 0, !hich ro$ides:

7ec" 0" In addition to the requirements ro$ided for in other la!s for the registration of titles tolands, no ri$ate land shall be transferred under this /ct, unless the transferee shall submit to the registerof deeds of the ro$ince or city !here the ro erty is located a s!orn statement sho!ing the date and

lace of his birthL the names and addresses of his arents, of his s ouse and children, if anyL the area, thelocation and the mode of acquisition of his landholdings in the Phili ines, if anyL his intention to reside

ermanently in the Phili inesL the date he lost his Phili ine citizenshi and the country of !hich he isresently a citizenL and such other information as may be required under 7ection 5 of this /ct"

*he 9ourt is of the $ie! that the requirements in 7ec" 0 of #P 5( do not a ly in the instant case sincesaid requirements are rimarily directed to the register of deeds before !hom com liance there!ith is tobe submitted" No!here in the ro$ision is it stated, much less im lied, that the requirements must li-e!isebe submitted before the land registration court rior to the a ro$al of an a lication for registration of title" /n a lication for registration of title before a land registration court should not be confused !ith theissuance of a certi>cate of title by the register of deeds" It is only !hen the judgment of the landregistration court a ro$ing the a lication for registration has become >nal that a decree of registration isissued" /nd that is the time !hen the requirements of 7ec" 0, #P 5(, before the register of deeds shouldbe com lied !ith by the a licants" *his decree of registration is the one that is submitted to the o ce of the register of deeds for issuance of the certi>cate of title in fa$or of the a licant" Prior to the issuance of the decree of registration, the register of deeds has no artici ation in the a ro$al of the a lication forregistration of title as the decree of registration is yet to be issued"

?H;1;8O1;, the etition is I7 I77; and the decision a ealed from is hereby /88I1 ; "

7O O1 ;1; "

Nar$asa, 9"C", 9ruz, 8eliciano, Padilla, 1egalado, a$ide, Cr", 1omero, #ellosillo, elo, Quiason, Puno, @itug,Ma unan, and endoza, CC",concur"

7e arate O inions91 U, C", dissenting:?ith all due res ect, I ha$e to dissent" *he onencia begins by osing the issue thus:

9an a foreign national a ly for registration of title o$er a arcel

ltd, chap v cases

Documents