6/17/2016

DirectorofLandsvsCA:102858:July28,1997:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.102858.July28,1997]

THEDIRECTOROFLANDS,petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TEODORO

Is newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration case
mandatoryordirectory?
StatementoftheCase
The Court of Appeals ruled that it was merely procedural and that the failure to cause such
publication did not deprive the trial court of its authority to grant the application. But the Solicitor
GeneraldisagreedandthusfiledthispetitiontosetasidetheDecision[1]promulgatedonJuly3,1991
and the subsequent Resolution[2] promulgated on November 19, 1991 by Respondent Court of
Appeals[3]inCAG.R.CVNo.23719.ThedispositiveportionofthechallengedDecisionreads:[4]
"WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thejudgmentofdismissalappealedfromisherebysetaside,andanew
oneenteredconfirmingtheregistrationandtitleofapplicant,TeodoroAbistado,Filipino,aresidentofBarangay
7,PoblacionMamburao,OccidentalMindoro,nowdeceasedandsubstitutedbyMargarita,Marissa,Maribel,
ArnoldandMaryAnn,allsurnamedAbistado,representedbytheiraunt,MissJosefaAbistado,Filipinos,
residentsofPoblacionMamburao,OccidentalMindoro,totheparceloflandcoveredunderMSI(IVA8)315D
locatedinPoblacionMamburao,OccidentalMindoro.
TheoppositionsfiledbytheRepublicofthePhilippinesandprivateoppositorareherebydismissedforwantof
evidence.
Uponthefinalityofthisdecisionandpaymentofthecorrespondingtaxesdueonthisland,letanorderforthe
issuanceofadecreebeissued."
TheFacts
On December 8, 1986, Private Respondent Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original
registrationofhistitleover648squaremetersoflandunderPresidentialDecree(PD)No.1529.[5]The
applicationwasdocketedasLandRegistrationCase(LRC)No.86andassignedtoBranch44ofthe
Regional Trial Court of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro.[6] However, during the pendency of his
petition, applicant died. Hence, his heirs Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold and Mary Ann, all
surnamed Abistado represented by their aunt Josefa Abistado, who was appointed their guardian
adlitem,weresubstitutedasapplicants.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm

1/5

6/17/2016

DirectorofLandsvsCA:102858:July28,1997:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

ThelandregistrationcourtinitsdecisiondatedJune13,1989dismissedthepetitionforwantof
jurisdiction.However, it found that the applicants through their predecessorsininterest had been in
open,continuous,exclusiveandpeacefulpossessionofthesubjectlandsince1938.
Indismissingthepetition,thetrialcourtreasoned:[7]
"xxx.However,theCourtnotedthatapplicantsfailedtocomplywiththeprovisionsofSection23(1)ofPD
1529,requiringtheApplicantstopublishthenoticeofInitialHearing(Exh.`E')inanewspaperofgeneral
circulationinthePhilippines.Exhibit`E'wasonlypublishedintheOfficialGazette(Exhibits`F'and`G').
Consequently,theCourtisofthewellconsideredviewthatithasnotlegallyacquiredjurisdictionoverthe
instantapplicationforwantofcompliancewiththemandatoryprovisionrequiringpublicationofthenoticeof
initialhearinginanewspaperofgeneralcirculation."
ThetrialcourtalsocitedMinistryofJusticeOpinionNo.48,Seriesof1982,whichinitspertinent
portionprovides:[8]
ItbearsemphasisthatthepublicationrequirementunderSection23[ofPD1529]hasatwofoldpurposethe
first,whichismentionedintheprovisionoftheaforequotedprovisionreferstopublicationintheOfficial
Gazette,andisjurisdictionalwhilethesecond,whichismentionedintheopeningclauseofthesameparagraph,
referstopublicationnotonlyintheOfficialGazettebutalsoinanewspaperofgeneralcirculation,andis
procedural.Neitheronenortheotherisdispensable.Astothefirst,publicationintheOfficialGazetteis
indispensablynecessarybecausewithoutit,thecourtwouldbepowerlesstoassumejurisdictionovera
particularlandregistrationcase.Astothesecond,publicationofthenoticeofinitialhearingalsoinanewspaper
ofgeneralcirculationisindispensablynecessaryasarequirementofproceduraldueprocessotherwise,any
decisionthatthecourtmaypromulgateinthecasewouldbelegallyinfirm.
Unsatisfied, private respondents appealed to Respondent Court of Appeals which, as earlier
explained,setasidethedecisionofthetrialcourtandorderedtheregistrationofthetitleinthename
ofTeodoroAbistado.
The subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in the challenged CA Resolution dated
November19,1991.
TheDirectorofLandsrepresentedbytheSolicitorGeneralthuselevatedthisrecoursetous.This
CourtnotesthatthepetitionerscounselanchoredhispetitiononRule65.Thisisanerror.Hisremedy
should be based on Rule 45 because he is appealing a final disposition of the Court of Appeals.
Hence,weshalltreathispetitionasoneforreviewunderRule45,andnotforcertiorariunderRule
65.[9]
TheIssue
Petitioner alleges that Respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion[10] in
holding
xxxthatpublicationofthepetitionforregistrationoftitleinLRCCaseNo.86neednotbepublishedina
newspaperofgeneralcirculation,andinnotdismissingLRCCaseNo.86forwantofsuchpublication.
Petitioner points out that under Section 23 of PD 1529, the notice of initial hearing shall be
published both in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation. According to
petitioner,publicationintheOfficialGazetteisnecessarytoconferjurisdictionuponthetrialcourt,and
xxxinxxxanewspaperofgeneralcirculationtocomplywiththenoticerequirementofdueprocess.[11]
Private respondents, on the other hand, contend that failure to comply with the requirement of
publication in a newspaper of general circulation is a mere procedural defect. They add that
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm

2/5

6/17/2016

DirectorofLandsvsCA:102858:July28,1997:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

publicationintheOfficialGazetteissufficienttoconferjurisdiction.[12]
Inreversingthedecisionofthetrialcourt,RespondentCourtofAppealsruled:[13]
xxxalthoughtherequirementofpublicationintheOfficialGazetteandinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationis
couchedinmandatoryterms,itcannotbegainsaidthatthelawalsomandateswithequalforcethatpublicationin
theOfficialGazetteshallbesufficienttoconferjurisdictionuponthecourt.
Further, Respondent Court found that the oppositors were afforded the opportunity to explain
mattersfullyandpresenttheirside.Thus,itjustifieditsdispositioninthiswise:[14]
xxxWedonotseehowthelackofcompliancewiththerequiredprocedureprejudicedtheminanyway.
Moreover,theotherrequirementsof:publicationintheOfficialGazette,personalnoticebymailing,andposting
atthesiteandotherconspicuousplaces,werecompliedwithandthesearesufficienttonotifyanypartywhois
mindedtomakeanyobjectionoftheapplicationforregistration.
TheCourtsRuling
Wefindforpetitioner.
NewspaperPublicationMandatory
The pertinent part of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 requiring publication of the
noticeofinitialhearingreadsasfollows:
Sec.23.Noticeofinitialhearing,publication,etc.Thecourtshall,withinfivedaysfromfilingofthe
application,issueanordersettingthedateandhouroftheinitialhearingwhichshallnotbeearlierthanforty
fivedaysnorlaterthanninetydaysfromthedateoftheorder.
Thepublicshallbegivennoticeofinitialhearingoftheapplicationforlandregistrationbymeansof(1)
publication(2)mailingand(3)posting.
1.Bypublication.
Uponreceiptoftheorderofthecourtsettingthetimeforinitialhearing,theCommissionerofLandRegistration
shallcauseanoticeofinitialhearingtobepublishedonceintheOfficialGazetteandonceinanewspaperof
generalcirculationinthePhilippines:Provided,however,thatthepublicationintheOfficialGazetteshallbe
sufficienttoconferjurisdictionuponthecourt.Saidnoticeshallbeaddressedtoallpersonsappearingtohavean
interestinthelandinvolvedincludingtheadjoiningownerssofarasknown,and`toallwhomitmayconcern.'
Saidnoticeshallalsorequireallpersonsconcernedtoappearincourtatacertaindateandtimetoshowcause
whytheprayerofsaidapplicationshallnotbegranted.
xxxxxxxxx
Admittedly, the above provision provides in clear and categorical terms that publication in the
OfficialGazettesufficestoconferjurisdictionuponthelandregistrationcourt.However,thequestion
boils down to whether, absent any publication in a newspaper of general circulation, the land
registrationcourtcanvalidlyconfirmandregisterthetitleofprivaterespondents.
We answer this query in the negative. This answer is impelled by the demands of statutory
constructionandthedueprocessrationalebehindthepublicationrequirement.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm

3/5

6/17/2016

DirectorofLandsvsCA:102858:July28,1997:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

The law used the term shall in prescribing the work to be done by the Commissioner of Land
Registration upon the latters receipt of the court order setting the time for initial hearing. The said
word denotes an imperative and thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute.[15] While
concededly such literal mandate is not an absolute rule in statutory construction, as its import
ultimatelydependsuponitscontextintheentireprovision,weholdthatinthepresentcasetheterm
mustbeunderstoodinitsnormalmandatorymeaning.InRepublicvs.Marasigan,[16]theCourtthrough
Mr.JusticeHilarioG.Davide,Jr.heldthatSection23ofPD1529requiresnoticeoftheinitialhearing
by means of (1) publication, (2) mailing and (3) posting, all of which must be complied with. If the
intentionofthelawwereotherwise,saidsectionwouldnothavestressedindetailtherequirementsof
mailing of notices to all persons named in the petition who, per Section 15 of the Decree, include
owners of adjoining properties, and occupants of the land.Indeed, if mailing of notices is essential,
then by parity of reasoning, publication in a newspaper of general circulation is likewise imperative
sincethelawincludedsuchrequirementinitsdetailedprovision.
It should be noted further that land registration is a proceeding in rem.[17] Being in rem, such
proceedingrequiresconstructiveseizureofthelandasagainstall persons, includingthe state,who
have rights to or interests in the property. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through
publication.Thisbeingso,theprocessmuststrictlybecompliedwith.Otherwise,personswhomaybe
interestedorwhoserightsmaybeadverselyaffectedwouldbebarredfromcontestinganapplication
whichtheyhadnoknowledgeof.Ashasbeenruled,apartyasanownerseekingtheinscriptionof
realty in the land registration court must prove by satisfactory and conclusive evidence not only his
ownershipthereofbuttheidentityofthesame,forheisinthesamesituationasonewhoinstitutesan
actionforrecoveryofrealty.[18]Hemustprovehistitleagainstthewholeworld.Thistask,whichrests
upontheapplicant,canbestbeachievedwhenallpersonsconcernednay,thewholeworldwho
haverightstoorinterestsinthesubjectpropertyarenotifiedandeffectivelyinvitedtocometocourt
and show cause why the application should not be granted. The elementary norms of due process
requirethatbeforetheclaimedpropertyistakenfromconcernedpartiesandregisteredinthenameof
theapplicant,saidpartiesmustbegivennoticeandopportunitytooppose.
It may be asked why publication in a newspaper of general circulation should be deemed
mandatory when the law already requires notice by publication in the Official Gazette as well as by
mailingandposting,allofwhichhavealreadybeencompliedwithinthecaseathand.Thereasonis
due process and the reality that the Official Gazette is not as widely read and circulated as
newspapersandisoftentimesdelayedinitscirculation,suchthatthenoticespublishedthereinmay
not reach the interested parties on time, if at all. Additionally, such parties may not be owners of
neighboringproperties,andmayinfactnotownanyotherrealestate.Insum,theallencompassingin
rem nature of land registration cases, the consequences of default orders issued against the whole
world and the objective of disseminating the notice in as wide a manner as possible demand a
mandatoryconstructionoftherequirementsforpublication,mailingandposting.
Admittedly,therewasfailuretocomplywiththeexplicitpublicationrequirementofthelaw.Private
respondents did not proffer any excuse even if they had, it would not have mattered because the
statute itself allows no excuses. Ineludibly, this Court has no authority to dispense with such
mandatoryrequirement.The law is unambiguous and its rationale clear.Time and again, this Court
has declared that where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for
interpretation,vacillationorequivocationthereisroomonlyforapplication.[19]Thereisnoalternative.
Thus, the application for land registration filed by private respondents must be dismissed without
prejudicetoreapplicationinthefuture,afterallthelegalrequisitesshallhavebeendulycompliedwith.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision and Resolution are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The application of private respondent for land registration is
DISMISSEDwithoutprejudice.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,Melo,andFrancisco,JJ.,concur.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm

4/5

6/17/2016

DirectorofLandsvsCA:102858:July28,1997:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

Narvasa,C.J.,(Chairman),onleave.
[1]Rollo,pp.2936.
[2]Ibid.,p.37.
[3] Seventh Division composed of Justice Celso L. Magsino, ponente, and Justices Serafin E. Camilon, Chairman, and

ArtemonD.Luna,concurring.
[4]Ibid.,p.35.
[5]KnownasthePropertyRegistrationDecree.
[6]PresidedbyJudgeNiovadyM.Marin.
[7]Rollo,p.41.
[8]Ibid.,pp.4142.
[9]The Solicitor General asked for and was granted an extension of 30 days within which to file a petition for review on

certiorari.ItisthusstrangewhytheOSGdescribeditspetitionasoneforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesof
Court.In any event, the Court, in its Resolution dated March 9, 1992 admitted the OSGs petition for review on
certiorari,clearlyrulingthatthepetitionwasoneforreview,andnotoneforcertiorari.
[10]Ibid.,p.21.Thisshouldreallyreadreversibleerrorsinceasalreadyexplained,thepetitionshouldbetreatedasonefor

reviewunderRule45.
[11]Ibid.,pp.2223.
[12]Ibid.,pp.5657.
[13]Ibid.,p.34Decision,p.6.
[14]Ibid.
[15]Bersabal vs. Salvador, 84 SCRA 176, 179180, July 21, 1978, citing Dizon vs. Encarnacion,9 SCRA 714, 716717,

December24,1963.
[16]198SCRA219,227228,June6,1991.
[17]GreyAlbavs.DelaCruz,17Phil.49,September16,1910.
[18]ArchbishopofManilavs.Arnedo,30Phil.593,March31,1915.
[19]CebuPortlandCementCompanyvs.MunicipalityofNaga,Cebu,24SCRA708,712,August22,1968citingLizarraga

Hermanos vs. Yap Tico, 24 Phil. 504, 1913 People vs. Mapa, L22301, August 30, 1967 Pacific Oxygen and
AcetyleneCo.vs.CentralBank,L21881,March1,1968Dequitovs.Lopez,L27757,March28,1968.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/102858.htm

5/5