Case Summary (G.R. No. 102858)
Petitioner’s Position
• Challenges the Court of Appeals’ ruling that newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration case is merely procedural.
• Asserts that Section 23(1) of PD 1529 makes publication in a newspaper of general circulation mandatory to confer due‐process notice.
Respondents’ Position
• Maintain that publication in the Official Gazette alone suffices to confer jurisdiction, and that failure to publish in a newspaper of general circulation is merely a procedural defect.
Key Dates
• December 8, 1986 – Filing of petition for original registration under PD 1529 (LRC No. 86)
• June 13, 1989 – RTC decision dismissing the petition for failure to publish in a newspaper of general circulation
• July 3, 1991 – Court of Appeals Decision setting aside the RTC dismissal and confirming registration
• November 19, 1991 – CA Resolution denying motion for reconsideration
• July 28, 1997 – Supreme Court Decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution: Due process requirements
• Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), Section 23(1): Notice of initial hearing must be given by publication once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation, by mailing, and by posting; publication in the Official Gazette suffices to confer jurisdiction.
• Ministry of Justice Opinion No. 48, Series of 1982: Distinguishes jurisdictional (Official Gazette) and procedural (newspaper) publication requirements.
Issue
Whether the requirement of newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration case is mandatory or directory under Section 23(1) of PD 1529.
Facts
- Teodoro Abistado filed an original registration petition over a 648 sqm parcel in Occidental Mindoro.
- During the proceedings, he died; his five heirs were substituted as applicants.
- The RTC found uninterrupted possession since 1938 but dismissed the petition for lack of newspaper publication of the hearing notice, citing Section 23(1) and MOJ Opinion No. 48.
- The CA reversed, holding that publication in the Official Gazette alone sufficed to confer jurisdiction and that due process had been observed through mailing and posting.
- The Director of Lands elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition for review.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
• Statutory Interpretation: The use of the term “shall” in Section 23(1) denotes a mandatory requirement for both forms of publication.
• Precedent (Republic v. Marasigan): All three means of notice—publication, mailing, posting—are indispensable.
• Nature of Proceeding: Land registration is in rem, requiring constructive notice to the world; strict
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 102858)
Facts
- On December 8, 1986, Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original registration of title over a 648-square-meter parcel of land under PD No. 1529 (Land Registration Case No. 86), assigned to RTC Branch 44 in Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro.
- During the pendency of the petition, the applicant, Teodoro Abistado, died. His heirs—Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold, and Mary Ann Abistado—were substituted as applicants, represented by their aunt and guardian ad litem, Josefa Abistado.
- In its June 13, 1989 decision, the trial court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation (as required by Section 23(1) of PD 1529) had not been observed; the notice had appeared only in the Official Gazette.
- The trial court noted, however, that the Abistado heirs had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and peaceful possession of the land since 1938.
Procedural History
- Private respondents appealed the RTC dismissal to the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. CV No. 23719).
- On July 3, 1991, the CA set aside the RTC’s dismissal and confirmed registration and title in favor of Teodoro Abistado (substituted by his heirs).
- The CA’s dispositive portion dismissed oppositions for lack of evidence and ordered issuance of a decree upon finality and payment of taxes.
- A motion for reconsideration filed with the CA was denied by resolution on November 19, 1991.
- The Director of Lands, represented by the Solicitor General, filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, treated as under Rule 45 (appeal from a final CA decision).
Issue
- Whether newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration case under PD 1529 is mandatory (jurisdictional/due process requirement) or merely directory (procedural formality).