Facts:

The case involves Adjap Allama and Hatib Sali Mahaddi as petitioners against the Republic of the Philippines as the respondent. The events leading to this case began on February 7, 1974, when the town of Jolo, Sulu, was attacked by rebels, resulting in the destruction of both the original and duplicate copies of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-784, which was registered in the names of the petitioners. On March 20, 1980, the petitioners filed a verified petition for the judicial reconstitution of their title under Republic Act No. 26. The Court of First Instance of Sulu set a hearing for June 27, 1980, and the notice of hearing was published in the Official Gazette and posted in four conspicuous places in Jolo. Additionally, copies of the notice were served to the Provincial Fiscal of Jolo and sent via registered mail to the Office of the Solicitor General, the Commissioner of the Land Registration Commission, and the Director of Lands. On October 24, 1980, the Republic of...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Adjap Allama and Hatib Sali Mahaddi filed a verified petition on March 20, 1980, for the judicial reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-784.
• The petition was based on the allegation that both the original and duplicate certificates were burned during a rebel attack on the town of Jolo, Sulu, on February 7, 1974.
• The petition was filed under Republic Act No. 26, an act that provides a special procedure for reconstituting Torrens Certificates of Title lost or destroyed.

Notice and Publication Procedures

• The trial court set the hearing for June 27, 1980, and published the notice of the hearing in the Official Gazette.
• The notice was also posted in four conspicuous places in Jolo by the Deputy Sheriff, ensuring local visibility.
• Additional copies of the notice were served on the Provincial Fiscal of Jolo, and sent by registered mail on April 2, 1980, to the Office of the Solicitor General, the Commissioner of the Land Registration Commission, and the Director of Lands.

Opposition and Procedural Movements

• On October 24, 1980, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Provincial Fiscal of Sulu, opposed the petition on the ground that the statutory requirements prescribed in Section 13 of Republic Act No. 26 were not fulfilled.
• Despite the opposition, the trial court granted the petition for reconstitution on September 29, 1980.
• The Republic subsequently filed a notice of appeal on November 11, 1981, contesting the trial court’s jurisdiction over the proceeding.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Concerns Raised

• The appellant contended that the trial court did not acquire proper jurisdiction to hear the case because the requirements and mode of procedure mandated by Section 13 of Republic Act No. 26 were not strictly followed.
• It was argued that the notice of hearing was defective because it omitted several key details such as:
• The name of the other registered owner (Adjap Allama).
• The names of the occupants or persons in possession of the property.
• The names of the owners of adjoining properties and other interested parties.
• Detailed information on the location, area, and boundaries of the property.
• These omissions were asserted to be fatal, as the absence of such information deprived interested parties of an opportunity to be heard, thus affecting the court's jurisdiction.

Issue:

Jurisdiction

• Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction to hear the petition for reconstitution given the alleged non-compliance with the procedural requirements prescribed by Republic Act No. 26.
• Whether the notice of hearing as published and served met the strict statutory requirements necessary for the court to proceed.

Compliance with Statutory Notice Requirements

• Whether the specific details that were mandated to be included in the notice of hearing under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 26 — such as the lost certificate number, name of the registered owner, names of occupants, names of adjoining property owners, and the detailed description of the property — were sufficiently provided.
• The impact of any deficiency in such notice on the validity of the petition and the subsequent proceedings.

Effect of Omission on Proceedings

• Whether any failure to adhere strictly to the mandates of the Act renders the proceedings, and the order of reconstitution, null and void due to lack of jurisdiction.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)