Case Digest (G.R. No. 68303)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. The Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals), and Princess Emme Atik Kiram, G.R. No. 68303, January 15, 1988, Supreme Court Second Division, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines; the respondents are the Intermediate Appellate Court (now the Court of Appeals), which affirmed the trial court, and Princess Emme Atik Kiram (private respondent), the applicant for reconstitution of title.
The dispute involved three undivided lots in Tiptipon, Panamao, Sulu (totaling 1,024 hectares) allegedly covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-133 standing in the name of Sultan Jamalul Kiram (deceased 1936). The private respondent claimed that the original and the owner’s duplicate of the certificate were destroyed in a February 1974 fire that gutted the Sulu Register of Deeds office, and on October 18, 1979 she filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of title in the Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court), Sulu, Branch I, presided by Judge Jainal D. Rasul.
At trial the private respondent submitted a sheriff’s return of service (including an order to the local station commander to post notices), a certificate of publication in the Official Gazette, survey plans and technical descriptions, and tax declarations. She also relied on Act No. 3430 and Proclamation No. 1530 as statutory bases asserting that the lands had been granted to the Sultan and his heirs. The Solicitor General did not oppose the petition in the trial court, and on June 4, 1980 the Court of First Instance granted reconstitution.
The Solicitor General appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Cou...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the reconstitution order void for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to post notices at the main entrances of the provincial and municipal buildings and to actually notify adjacent owners as required by law?
- Were Act No. 3430 and Proclamation No. 1530, together with the other evidence presented, sufficient documentary bases under Republic Act No. 26 (Sections 2, 3 and 12) to support reconstitution o...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)