Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 413 views

    Republic v. Manna Properties, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Jorge Sibayan
    The Republic filed a petition against Manna Properties, Inc. for allegedly failing to comply with the jurisdictional requirements for original land registration. Manna Properties filed an application for registration of two parcels of land. The initial hearing was reset several times at the request of the Land Registration Authority due to scheduling conflicts. The petitioner argued the hearing was set beyond the 90-day maximum period under the law. However, the Court held that Manna Properties complied with all legal requirements and was not at fault for the court resetting the hearing dates outside the 90-day period, as setting hearing dates is solely within the power of the land registration court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic v. Manna Properties, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Jorge Sibayan
    413 views2 pages
    The Republic filed a petition against Manna Properties, Inc. for allegedly failing to comply with the jurisdictional requirements for original land registration. Manna Properties filed an application for registration of two parcels of land. The initial hearing was reset several times at the request of the Land Registration Authority due to scheduling conflicts. The petitioner argued the hearing was set beyond the 90-day maximum period under the law. However, the Court held that Manna Properties complied with all legal requirements and was not at fault for the court resetting the hearing dates outside the 90-day period, as setting hearing dates is solely within the power of the land registration court.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Republic filed a petition against Manna Properties, Inc. for allegedly failing to comply with the jurisdictional requirements for original land registration. Manna Properties filed an application for registration of two parcels of land. The initial hearing was reset several times at the request of the Land Registration Authority due to scheduling conflicts. The petitioner argued the hearing was set beyond the 90-day maximum period under the law. However, the Court held that Manna Properties complied with all legal requirements and was not at fault for the court resetting the hearing dates outside the 90-day period, as setting hearing dates is solely within the power of the land registration court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    413 views2 pages

    Republic v. Manna Properties, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Jorge Sibayan
    The Republic filed a petition against Manna Properties, Inc. for allegedly failing to comply with the jurisdictional requirements for original land registration. Manna Properties filed an application for registration of two parcels of land. The initial hearing was reset several times at the request of the Land Registration Authority due to scheduling conflicts. The petitioner argued the hearing was set beyond the 90-day maximum period under the law. However, the Court held that Manna Properties complied with all legal requirements and was not at fault for the court resetting the hearing dates outside the 90-day period, as setting hearing dates is solely within the power of the land registration court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Republic v. Manna Properties, Inc.

    450 SCRA 247


    Facts:
    Manna Properties filed an application for the registration of title of two (2)
    parcels of land located in Barangay Pagdaraoan, San Fernando, La Union. Copies of
    the application, postal money orders for publication purposes and record were
    forwarded to the Land Registration Authority by the Court
    The applicant was directed to submit the names and complete postal
    addresses of the adjoining owners. Thus, the applicant filed its compliance, which
    was forwarded to the Land Registration Authority together with the notice of the
    Initial Hearing, which was reset to April 13, 1995.
    The Land Registration Authority requested for the resetting of the initial
    hearing since April 13, 1995 fell on Holy Thursday, a non-working day. The initial
    hearing was, accordingly, reset to April 20, 1995
    The LRA again requested that the initial hearing be moved the notice can no
    longer be published in the Official Gazette for lack of material time since the
    National Printing Office required submission of the printing materials 75 days before
    the date of the hearing. Per Order dated March 15, 1995, the initial hearing was
    reset to July 18, 1995.
    Petitioner contends that PD 1529 sets a 90-day maximum period between the
    court order setting the initial hearing date and the hearing itself. Petitioner points
    out that in this case, the trial court issued the order setting the date of the initial
    hearing on 15 March 1995, but the trial court set the hearing date itself on 18 July
    1995. Considering that there are 125 days in between the two dates, petitioner
    argues that the trial court exceeded the 90-day period set by PD 1529. Thus,
    petitioner concludes the applicant [Manna Properties] failed to comply with the
    jurisdictional requirements for original registration.
    Issue:
    Whether Manna Properties complied with the jurisdiction requirements for
    original registration.
    Held:
    Yes. Manna Properties complied with the jurisdictional requirements. The
    Court finds Manna Properties not at fault why the hearing date was set beyond the
    90-day maximum period.
    The duty and the power to set the hearing date lies with the land registration
    court. After an applicant has filed his application, the law requires the issuance of a
    court order setting the initial hearing date. The notice of initial hearing is a court
    document. The notice of initial hearing is signed by the judge and copy of the notice
    is mailed by the clerk of court to the LRA. This involves a process to which the party
    applicant absolutely has no participation.

    A party to an action has no control over the Administrator or the Clerk of


    Court acting as a land court; he has no right to meddle unduly with the business of
    such official in the performance of his duties. A party cannot intervene in matters
    within the exclusive power of the trial court. No fault is attributable to such party if
    the trial court errs on matters within its sole power. It is unfair to punish an
    applicant for an act or omission over which the applicant has neither responsibility
    nor control, especially if the applicant has complied with all the requirements of the
    law.

    You might also like