SECOND DIVISION
|
SPS. TAN SING PAN and Petitioners, -
versus - REPUBLIC OF THE Respondent. |
G.R. No. 149114
Present:
PUNO, J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: July 21, 2006 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Assailed and sought to be set aside in this petition
for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the Decision[1]
dated
The
facts:
Sometime
in 1931, the Director of Lands, acting for and in behalf of the Government,
instituted with the then Court of First Instance of Gumaca, Quezon (now Branch
61, Regional Trial Court, Gumaca, Quezon) Cadastral Case No. 67, LRC GLRO Rec. No.
1026 pursuant to the government’s initiative to place all lands under the Cadastral
System whereby titles for all lands within a stated area are adjudicated
regardless of whether or not people living within the area desire to have
titles.
More
than six (6) decades later, or more specifically on
In
their Answer, petitioners asserted ownership over
On
On
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby
approves Subdivision Plan Csd-04-015150 together with its technical description
insofar as Lot No. 1027-A now equals to Lot No. 18009 of the Atimonan Cadastre
is concerned, and confirming the order of general default previously entered in
this case, all the requirements of the law having been complied with, this
Court hereby adjudicates Lot No. 18009 before Lot No. 1027-A of Subdivision
Plan Csd-04-015150 of the Atimonan Cadastre, together with the improvements
existing thereon, in favor of movants-claimants spouses TAN SING PAN and
MAGDALENA VERANGA, both of legal age, Filipino citizens, and residents of
Atimonan, Quezon, as their conjugal partnership property, free from liens and
encumbrances.
The road, highways, streets, alleys,
water courses and other portions of land not specified as lot located within
the border of the land covered by this case are declared property of the
Republic of the
Upon this decision becoming final,
let a decree of confirmation and registration be entered and thereafter upon
payment of the fees required by law, let the corresponding certificate of title
be issued in the name of the movants-claimants.
SO
ORDERED.
In time, the Republic, represented by
the Office of the Solicitor General, went on appeal to the CA on the sole jurisdictional
issue of whether the trial court erred in proceeding with the hearing of the
case despite petitioners’ failure to prove the publication of the Notice of
Initial Hearing in the Office Gazette.
In the herein assailed Decision
dated
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED and the appealed
decision of the court a quo dated
SO ORDERED.
Their motion for reconsideration having
been denied by the CA in its equally challenged Resolution of July 20, 2001,
petitioners are now with this Court via the present recourse on their principal
submission that the CA committed reversible error in ruling that the trial
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case on account of their failure to
present proof of publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing.
To petitioners, the jurisdictional
requirement of publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing has been complied
with way back in 1931 when the Director of Lands, acting for and in behalf of
the Government, instituted Cadastral Case No. 67 because the present case is
merely a continuation thereof. Petitioners insist that Cadastral Case No. 67 has
long been the subject of court proceedings even before the outbreak of the
Second World War and, consequently, all lots covered therein have already been
included in the required publication. They
also contend that the Republic cannot raise, and is already estopped from
raising, this jurisdictional issue at this point in time when thousands of lots
have already been adjudicated by the cadastral court without the need of
publication. Petitioners hasten to add that, since it was the Director of Lands
who initiated the cadastral proceedings, it was incumbent upon him to show
proof of publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing.
Petitioners’
arguments are specious.
To be sure, publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in the Official Gazette is one of the essential
requisites for a court to acquire jurisdiction in land registration and
cadastral cases, and additional territory cannot be included by amendment of
the plan without new publication.
Section
7 of the Cadastral Act (Act No. 2259) provides:
Sec. 7. Upon the receipt of the order of the
court setting the time for initial hearing of the petition, the Commission on
Land Registration shall cause notice thereof to be published twice, in
successive issues of the Official Gazette, in the English language. The notice shall be issued by order of the
Court, attested by the Commissioner of the Land Registration Office, xxx.
In
Director of Lands, et al. v. Benitez, et
al.,[5]
the Court categorically stated that publication is essential to establish
jurisdiction in land registration and cadastral cases, without which the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction thereon or obtain any authority to proceed therewith.
Here, compliance with the publication
requirement is rendered even more imperative by the fact that the lot involved
was originally surveyed as Lot No. 1027 but what was adjudicated to petitioners
is a portion designated as “Lot No. 1027-A now equal to Lot No. 18009 of the
Atimonan Cadastre.”[6]
So it is that in Philippine Manufacturing Company v. Imperial,[7]
the Court ruled:
Upon consideration of the facts
above stated it is quite obvious that the respondent judge had no jurisdiction
whatever over lot No. 40 in the cadastral case now pending before him and the
adjudication of said lot to the Cabangis heirs by the decision of July 16,
1925, is a mere nullity. From the agreed
statement it is obvious that no publication has ever been made except the
initial publication, and this did not include lot No. 40. Publication of course is one of the essential
bases of the jurisdiction of the court in land registration and cadastral
cases, and the attempt that was here made to incorporate lot No. 40 into the
cadastral was futile. Before a cadastral
survey can be amended so as to include land in which no publication has been
made, new publication is necessary, - a step essential to the protection of
persons interested in the property which is intended to be included. But even if the order amending the cadastral
plan had not been wholly void, the facts above revealed would justify the
granting of a new trial by this court under section 513 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. However, in view of want of
publication, it is only necessary here to pronounce the order of
Cadastral proceedings, like
ordinary registration proceedings, are
proceedings in rem, and are governed
by the usual rules of practice, procedure and evidence. A cadastral decree and
a certificate of title are issued only after the applicants prove all the
requisite jurisdictional facts: that they are entitled to the claimed lot; that
all parties are heard; and that evidence is considered.
Instructive are the following
pronouncements of the Court in Government
of the Philippine
Under the Cadastral System, pursuant
to initiative on the part of the Government, titles for all the land within a
stated area, are adjudicated whether or not the people living within this
district desire to have titles issued.
The purpose, as stated in section one of the Cadastral Act (No. 2259),
is to serve the public interests, by requiring that the titles to any lands “be
settled and adjudicated.”
Admitting that such compulsory
registration of land and such excessive interference with private property
constitutes due process of law and that the Acts providing for the same are
constitutional, a question not here raised, yet a study of the law indicates
that many precautions are taken to guard against injustice. The proceedings are initiated by a notice of
survey. When the lands have been
surveyed and plotted, the Director of Lands, represented by the Attorney
General, files a petition in court praying that the titles to the lands named
be settled and adjudicated. Notice of
the filing of the petition is then published twice in successive issues of the
Official Gazette in both the English and Spanish languages. All persons interested are given the benefit
of assistance by competent officials and are informed of their rights. A trial is had. “All conflicting interests shall be
adjudicated by the court and decrees awarded in favor of the persons entitled
to the lands or the various parts thereof, and such decrees, when final, shall
be the bases of original certificates of title in favor of said persons.” (Act No. 2259, Sec. 11.) Aside from this, the commotion caused by the
survey and a trial affecting ordinarily many people, together with the presence
of strangers in the community, should serve to put all those affected on their
guard.
After trial in a cadastral case,
three actions are taken. The first
adjudicates ownership in favor of one of the claimants. This constitutes the decision – the judgment
– the decree of the court, and speaks in a judicial manner. The second action is the declaration by the
court that the decree is final and its order for the issuance of the
certificates of title by the Chief of the Land Registration Office. Such order is made if within thirty days from
the date of receipt of a copy of the decision no appeal is taken from the
decision. This again is judicial action,
although to a less degree than the first.
The third and last action devolves
upon the General Land Registration Office.
This office has been instituted “for the due effectuation and
accomplishment of the laws relative to the registration of land.” (Administrative Code of 1917, Sec. 174.) An official found in the office, known as the
chief surveyor, has as one of his duties “to prepare final decrees in all
adjudicated cases.” (Administrative Code
of 1917, Sec. 177.) This latter decree
contains the technical description of the land and may not be issued until a
considerable time after the promulgation of the judgment. The form of the decree used by the General
Land Registration Office concludes with the words: “Witness, the Honorable
(name of the judge), on this the (date).”
The date that is used as authority for the issuance of the decree is the
date when, after hearing the evidence, the trial court decreed the adjudication
and registration of the land.
The judgment in a cadastral survey,
including the rendition of the decree, is a judicial act. As the law says, the judicial decree when
final is the base of the certificate of title.
The issuance of the decree by the Land Registration Office is
ministerial act. The date of the
judgment, or more correctly stated, the date on which the defeated party
receives a copy of the decision, begins the running of the time for the
interposition of a motion for a new trial or for the perfection of an appeal to
the Supreme Court. The date of the title
prepared by the Chief Surveyor is unimportant, for the adjudication has taken
place and all that is left to be performed is the mere formulation of the
technical description. If an unknown
individual could wait possibly years until the day before a surveyor gets around
to transcribing a technical description of a piece of land, the defeated party
could just as reasonably expect the same consideration for his appeal. As a matter of fact, the so-called unknown is
a party just as much as the known oppositor for notice is to all the world, and
the decree binds all the world.
As
petitioners’ themselves concede,[10] the
filing of an answer or claim with the cadastral court is equivalent to an
application for registration of title to real property. It is thus an action in rem[11] and the land registration court acquires
jurisdiction over the res by service
of processes in the manner prescribed by the statute.
In this connection, Section 35 of the
Land Registration Decree, PD 1529, provides:
A. ORDER FOR SPEEDY SETTLEMENT AND ADJUDICATION;
SURVEY; NOTICES
SEC. 35. Cadastral Survey prepatory to filing of
petition. –
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Thereupon, the Director of Lands shall
give notice to persons claiming any interest in the lands, as well as to the
general public, of the day on which such survey will begin, giving as fully and
accurately as possible the description of the lands to be surveyed. Such notice shall be published once in the
Official Gazette, and a copy of the notice in English or the national language
shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the bulletin board of the municipal
building of the municipality in which the lands or any portion thereof is
situated. A copy of the notice shall
also be sent to the mayor of such municipality as well as to the barangay
captain and likewise to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Sangguniang Bayan
concerned. xxx
It is
incumbent upon the petitioners to establish by positive proof that the
publication requirement has been complied with, what with the fact that they
are the ones who stood to be benefited by the adjudication of the subject lot. Regrettably,
they failed to present proof of publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing. Their argument that the instant case is a mere
continuation of the proceedings in Cadastral Case No. 67 whereat the Director of
Lands must have caused the publication of the notice of initial hearing in the Official Gazette cannot hold water. For one, and as noted by
the CA in the decision under review:
Unfortunately
for the [petitioner], they have not even proven the initial publication they
are claiming. It would have been too
facile to obtain proof of such publication from the original records of
Cadastral Case No. 67 at the Regional Trial Court in Gumaca, Quezon, Branch 61,
(See Exhibit “J”; Original Record, p. 25; which inferentially shows the
existence of the original records) and offer it as evidence in the court a quo, but they seemingly did not care
to do so. They have, therefore, only themselves to blame for their present
predicament.[12] (Word
in bracket added).
For another, by petitioners’ own admission,
the filing of their Answer which they did only after more than six (6) decades
from the time Cadastral Case No. 67 was initiated by the Director of Lands is
equivalent to an application for registration of title, and hence publication
in the Official Gazette of the notice
of initial hearing thereof is imperative to vest jurisdiction on the 7th
MCTC to proceed with petitioners’ application for registration in the form of their Answer.
All told, there being no indication at
all from the records of the case that notice of the Order for Initial Hearing
was published in the Official Gazette
and in a newspaper of general circulation, without which the trial court did
not acquire jurisdiction over the case, the
decision rendered by the 7th MCTC of Atimonan-Plaridel, Quezon, confirming
petitioners’ title over the subject lot is void ab initio for having been rendered without jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED and the assailed
Decision and Resolution of the CA are AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second
Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. (ret.), with Presiding Justice Salome A. Montoya (ret.) and Associate Justice Wenceslao I. Agnir, Jr. (ret.), concurring; Rollo, pp. 33-42.
[2] Rollo, pp. 51-52.
[3] Exhibits “B-1” to “B-12” and Exhibits “D” to “D-10.”
[4] Rollo, pp. 31-32.
[5] G.R. No. L-21368,
[6] Rollo, p. 31.
[7] 49 Phil. 122 (1926).
[8] Rollo, p. 39.
[9] 39 Phil. 996 (1919).
[10] Last paragraph, p. 11, Petition; Rollo, p. 18.
[11] Director
of Lands v.
[12] Rollo, p. 41.