Title
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. Sison
Case
G.R. No. L-40309
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1983
Petition for reconstitution of lost titles contested due to non-compliance with mandatory publication in Official Gazette; Supreme Court annulled reconstituted titles, upholding MWSS's subsisting ownership.
reconstituted land titles
lack of jurisdiction
mandatory requirements

Case Summary (G.R. No. 91159)

Factual Background

On February 4, 1970, the private respondents filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXII, sitting at Pasig, a verified petition for the reconstitution of Transfer Certificates of Title covering Lot Nos. 946, 947, and 948 of the Tala Estate, Caloocan City, which they alleged were lost during the last World War. The petition averred ownership in the private respondents, the loss or destruction of the original copies in the Register of Deeds’ office and their owner’s duplicates, and the alleged absence of any existing lien or encumbrance. It further claimed actual, public, continuous, and uninterrupted possession by the petitioners and the lack of any deed or instrument registered or pending registration in the Register of Deeds relating to the properties. The petition sought reconstitution on the basis of technical descriptions and a plan attached to the petition.

On February 5, 1970, Judge Benjamin H. Aquino set the hearing for March 7, 1970 at 8:30 A.M. The trial court also ordered that the order setting the hearing be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Manila Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Manila and the Province of Rizal, and that copies of the order be posted by the deputy sheriff in the municipal building of Caloocan City and the provincial capitol building at Pasig, Rizal, at the expense of the private respondents. The record showed that the order setting the hearing was published on February 8, 15, and 22, 1970. Copies were posted and notice was served by registered mail to the Director of Lands and the Office of the Solicitor General.

At the March 7, 1970 hearing, Atty. Daniel C. Florida, special counsel for the Solicitor General, appeared for the Director of Lands. The trial court gave ten days to file opposition. Subsequently, because of a written manifestation by Atty. Florida that the Director of Lands had no opposition, the court, on motion, authorized the reception of evidence without opposition.

On April 6, 1970, the trial court issued an order granting the petition for reconstitution. Pursuant to that order, on March 31, 1971, the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City issued reconstituted titles, namely Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. [N.A.] 5[R], [N.A.] 6[R], and [N.A.] 7[R], covering Lot Nos. 946, 947, and 948, respectively, in the name of “Don Mariano de San Pedro, Filipino, of legal age and widower.”

Subsequent Challenges and Procedural History

Two years later, on July 17, 1973, Isabela Cultural Corporation filed a motion to set aside the April 6, 1970 order. It contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the order setting the hearing had been published in a newspaper rather than in the Official Gazette, as allegedly required by Section 13 of Rep. Act No. 26. Isabela also argued that the order was void for lack of actual and personal notice, emphasizing that it was the actual possessor and registered owner of the subject lots based on its existing certificates of title. It specified that Lot No. 946 was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 19084 issued March 19, 1931, and later subdivided at Isabela’s instance into Lots 946-A and 946-B for which titles were issued on February 12, 1973. It further stated that Lot Nos. 947-New-C and 947-New-D were encompassed by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23893 issued July 25, 1933, and that Lot No. 948-New-B was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23895 issued July 25, 1933.

Petitioner MWSS, on September 4, 1973, filed an omnibus motion to intervene and to set aside the April 6, 1970 order. MWSS asserted that the absence of publication in the Official Gazette deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. It also invoked the existence of MWSS titles over portions of the lands, citing Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 23892 and 23894 issued in 1933, derived from earlier titles linked to Original Certificate of Title No. 543 issued July 23, 1913 under Decree No. 4974. MWSS further claimed that its inability to file a proper opposition resulted from respondents’ failure to serve the requisite notice of hearing.

In response, the private respondents argued that although Rep. Act No. 26 required publication in the Official Gazette, publication in the Manila Daily Bulletin was allegedly authorized by Rep. Act 4569 and thus amounted to substantial compliance. They also asserted that the order had become final and unappealable, thus foreclosing disturbance.

Acting on the motions, Judge Nicanor Sison issued an order dated March 27, 1974. He held that publication in the Manila Daily Bulletin did not comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 13 of Rep. Act 26, and therefore the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction to pass upon the petition for reconstitution. He consequently set aside the April 6, 1970 order and declared the reconstituted titles cancelled and without force and effect.

The private respondents moved for reconsideration, but the trial court denied it. They filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond on August 19, 1974. Meanwhile, on May 15, 1974, Eastcoast Development Enterprises, Inc., Constancio B. Maglana, and Francisco Artigo moved to intervene and to set aside the March 27, 1974 order, claiming they had legal interest as innocent purchasers for value holding titles derived from the reconstituted titles.

After submission of pleadings, Judge Sison issued the questioned order dated September 4, 1974 reversing his prior March 27, 1974 ruling. He granted intervention and reconsidered and set aside the March 27, 1974 order. He declared the reconstituted titles and all titles derived therefrom valid and binding under Rep. Act No. 26, reasoning that since the petition for reconstitution was a proceeding in rem, publication of the notice of hearing—whether made in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation—was sufficient compliance with Section 13 of Rep. Act 26 in relation to Rep. Act 4569.

MWSS sought relief in the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari and prohibition following denial of its motion for reconsideration.

Legal Issues

The controversy required the Court to determine whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction to entertain the petition for reconstitution and issue the reconstitution orders when the notice of hearing was not published in the Official Gazette as required by Section 13 of Rep. Act 26. The case also required consideration of whether subsequent orders could stand as valid in view of the existence of prior subsisting Torrens titles held by persons other than those named in the reconstitution orders, and whether finality could protect reconstitution orders that were alleged to be void for jurisdictional defects.

The Parties' Contentions

MWSS contended that the notice of hearing was never published in the Official Gazette and therefore the trial court failed to satisfy the mandatory and jurisdictional requisites of Section 13 of Rep. Act 26, rendering the April 6, 1970 order void. It also maintained that even if jurisdiction were assumed, the reconstituted titles could not prevail over existing titles covering the same lands, and that its inability to oppose stemmed from failure to serve the required notice.

The private respondents countered that publication in a newspaper of general circulation, specifically the Manila Daily Bulletin, constituted substantial compliance because Section 1 of Rep. Act 4569 allegedly authorized such publication. They further asserted that the questioned orders had already become final and unappealable, and thus should not be disturbed.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Court

The Court found it undisputed that the notice of hearing in the petition had not been published in the Official Gazette. It quoted Section 13 of Rep. Act No. 26, which required publication twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, as well as posting on the main entrances of the provincial and municipal buildings at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing, and sending a copy of the notice by registered mail or otherwise to every person named therein whose address was known at least thirty days prior to the hearing. The Court held that the publication in two successive issues of the Official Gazette and the related notice provisions—service upon adjoining owners and actual occupants and posting—were mandatory and jurisdictional requisites.

In support, the Court relied on Syjuco vs. PNB, where it ruled that an order of reconstitution issued without the previous publication required by law, particularly Section 13 of Rep. Act 26, was null and void and that everything done under the void order was likewise void. The Court then addressed, and rejected, the private respondents’ argument that publication in the Manila Daily Bulletin, due to its wider circulation, provided substantial compliance and that Rep. Act 4569 allowed newspaper publication.

The Court reasoned that Rep. Act 4569 applied only to judicial notices and similar notices required by law to be published in a newspaper of general circulation. It did not modify the express requirement in Section 13 of Rep. Act 26 that publication of the notice of hearing in reconstitution proceedings must be made in the Official Gazette. The Court emphasized that Section 13 did not provide any alternative medium or manner of publication. It characterized a petition for reconstitution of lost certificates of title as akin to a land registration and cadastral proceeding, where publication of the notice of initial hearing in the Official Gazette was required. Accordingly, unless the statute was amended, the Court held that strict compliance remained compulsory and jurisdictional.

The Court also rejected the private respondents’ reliance on finality. It held that the orders dated September 6, 1970 and September 4, 1974 were void orders and, in contemplation of law, non

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms