The Director of Lands Vs. Court of Appeals

The Director of Lands, Petitioner Vs. Court of Appeals and Teodoro Abistado, substituted by Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold and Mary Ann, all surnamed Abistado, Respondents.

G.R. No. 102858, July 28, 1997


Facts: Teodoro Abistado, private respondent, Filed a petition for original registration of his title over 648 square meters of land under P.D. No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree. The application was docketed as Land Registration Case (LRC) No. 86 and assigned to Branch 44 of the Regional Trial Court of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. During the pendency of the case, Teodoro Abistado died and was substituted by his children - Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold, and Mary Ann, all surnamed Abistado, who were all represented by their aunt Josefa Abistado, ad litem ( act in which a lawsuit has a representative in behalf of children not capable of representation.)

Land Registration Court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction in compliance with the mandatory provision requiring publication of initial public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. Records show that applicants failed to comply with P.D. No. 1529 Section 23 (1) requiring publication of notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.
Initial public hearing was only published in the Official Gazette.

The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals which granted the application and ordered the registration of title to Teodoro Abistado, since publication in a newspaper of general Circulation is merely procedural, hence dispensable. The Director of Land, represented by the Solicitor General, elevated this case to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or Not the Director of Land is correct that the publication of Notice of Initial hearing in a Land Registration Case is mandatory.

Held: Yes. Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 shall be followed requiring a publication once both in the Official Gazette and newspaper of general circulation. The Land Registration Case is an in Rem proceeding, meaning the applicant must prove his title over the land against all persons concerned, who might have interest to right in the property and should effectively be invited in the court to prove why the title should not be granted.

Such provision used the term "shall" which indicated that it is mandatory.
When the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, vacillation, or equivocation, there is room only for application.

Thus. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Lower Court dismissing the petition for registration of Land Title to the respondents.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation (GMRC) Vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Imelda Salazar

The People of the Philippines Vs. Patricio Amigo