Case Summary (G.R. No. 102858)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Application for original registration filed December 8, 1986 and docketed as Land Registration Case No. 86. Trial court issued decision dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to comply with Section 23(1) of PD 1529 (publication in a newspaper of general circulation). The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered registration. The Director of Lands (Solicitor General) sought review before the Supreme Court, which treated the petition as a Rule 45 review.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Primary statutory provision: Section 23 of PD No. 1529 (notice of initial hearing: publication, mailing, posting; publication once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation; proviso that publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction). Constitutional baseline (applicable because decision date is after 1990): the 1987 Constitution’s due process guarantee (No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law), which underpins procedural notice requirements in proceedings affecting property rights.
Issue Presented
Whether newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration case under Section 23 of PD 1529 is mandatory (jurisdictional or otherwise indispensable) or merely directory (procedural and dispensable), and whether the failure to publish in a newspaper of general circulation invalidates the court’s authority to grant registration.
Trial Court Ruling and Rationale
The trial court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of initial hearing was published only in the Official Gazette and not in a newspaper of general circulation. The court relied on Ministry of Justice Opinion No. 48 (Series of 1982) which distinguished two publication purposes: (1) Official Gazette publication as jurisdictional and (2) newspaper publication as procedural due process — concluding both publications were indispensable and that omission deprived the court of jurisdiction.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction and that failure to publish in a newspaper of general circulation is a procedural defect that did not prejudice oppositors. The CA noted that other notice measures (mailing, posting, Official Gazette) were complied with and that oppositors had the opportunity to present their case, thereby justifying registration.
Supreme Court Holding
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals. It held that newspaper publication required by Section 23 is mandatory and indispensable. Although the statute contains a proviso that Official Gazette publication is sufficient to confer jurisdiction, the Court concluded that the separate requirement of publication in a newspaper of general circulation must be complied with because the statute uses the imperative term “shall” and because of the in rem character of land registration proceedings and the due process interests implicated.
Reasoning: Statutory Construction and In Rem Nature
The Court applied principles of statutory construction, giving effect to the mandatory language (“shall”) and to the detailed scheme of Section 23, which prescribes publication, mailing, and posting. It reasoned that mailing is plainly essential (per prior decisions), and by parity of reasoning newspaper publication is likewise essential since the statute expressly requires it. The Court emphasized that land registration is an in rem proceeding that affects the whole world; constructive seizure and broad notice are necessary to protect the property rights of all who may
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 102858)
Case Information and Citation
- Reported at 342 Phil. 239, Third Division; G.R. No. 102858; Decision promulgated July 28, 1997.
- Ponente: Justice Panganiban; Concurrences: Davide, Jr., Melo, and Francisco, JJ.; Chief Justice Narvasa on leave.
- Parties: The Director of Lands (petitioner) versus the Court of Appeals and Teodoro Abistado, substituted by his heirs Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold and Mary Ann Abistado (respondents).
- Matter: Petition for review of Court of Appeals Decision (CA-G.R. CV No. 23719) dated July 3, 1991 and Resolution dated November 19, 1991, concerning an original land registration application under PD No. 1529.
Statement of the Case
- Issue framed by the Court: Is newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration case mandatory or directory?
- The Court of Appeals held the newspaper publication requirement merely procedural and ruled that failure to publish in a newspaper of general circulation did not deprive the trial court of authority to grant registration.
- The Solicitor General, representing the Director of Lands, filed a petition to set aside the Court of Appeals Decision and its subsequent Resolution.
- The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' decision (as quoted in the record) ordered confirmation of registration in the name of Teodoro Abistado (now deceased and substituted by heirs), dismissed oppositions for want of evidence, and directed issuance of a decree upon finality and payment of taxes.
Facts
- On December 8, 1986, Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original registration of title over 648 square meters under Presidential Decree No. 1529; the case was docketed as Land Registration Case No. 86 and assigned to Branch 44, Regional Trial Court, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro (presided by Judge Niovady M. Marin).
- During the pendency of the petition, the applicant died; his heirs (Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold and Mary Ann Abistado) were substituted and represented by their aunt Josefa Abistado as guardian ad litem.
- The land registration court rendered a decision dated June 13, 1989 dismissing the petition for want of jurisdiction because applicants failed to comply with Section 23(1) of PD 1529 requiring the notice of initial hearing to be published in a newspaper of general circulation; the court noted the notice was only published in the Official Gazette (Exhibits F and G).
- The trial court nonetheless found that the applicants and their predecessors had been in open, continuous, exclusive and peaceful possession of the subject land since 1938.
- The trial court cited Ministry of Justice Opinion No. 48, Series of 1982, stating publication in the Official Gazette is jurisdictional while publication in a newspaper of general circulation is procedural, and concluded neither publication could be dispensed with.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, ordered registration, and denied a motion for reconsideration in its November 19, 1991 Resolution.
- The Director of Lands, through the Solicitor General, appealed to the Supreme Court; the petition was filed under Rule 65 but was treated by the Court as a review under Rule 45 (the proper remedy for an appeal from a final disposition of the Court of Appeals).
Procedural Note on Proper Mode of Review
- The Solicitor General originally captioned and filed the petition as certiorari under Rule 65; the Supreme Court observed this was erroneous because the proper remedy was review under Rule 45 for a final decision of the Court of Appeals.
- The Court accordingly treated the petition as one for review on appeal under Rule 45 rather than Rule 65.
Issue Presented
- Central legal question: Whether the publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation (in addition to the Official Gazette) under Section 23 of PD No. 1529 is mandatory (jurisdictional) or directory (procedural).
- Petitioner’s contention: Under Section 23 of PD 1529, notice must be published both in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation; publication in the Official Gazette confers jurisdiction, while publication in a newspaper of general circulation assures due process by providing notice to interested parties.
- Private respondents’ contention: Failure to publish in a newspaper of general circulation is merely a procedural defect; publication i