Title
Republic vs. Royales
Case
G.R. No. 168742
Decision Date
Sep 3, 2008
A cadastral case involving Lot Nos. 2917, 2919, 3272, and 9533 in Libmanan, Camarines Sur, where Norma Royales claimed ownership. The CFI ruled in her favor, but records were lost in a fire. Royales petitioned for reconstitution without publication, which the RTC granted. The Republic appealed, arguing publication was necessary. The Supreme Court ruled publication mandatory under Act 3110, requiring Royales to refile with proper notice, but no relitigation was needed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 120344)

Background of the Case

On July 7, 1970, the Director of Lands initiated Cadastal Case No. L-1 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Sur for several lots located in Libmanan, Camarines Sur. Norma Royales claimed ownership of these lots. A decision favoring Royales was rendered on September 17, 1975, but before the decree of registration could be issued, on June 26, 1976, a fire destroyed the Registry of Deeds, including all pertinent records.

Reconstitution Petition

On October 24, 2002, nearly thirty years after the fire, Royales filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Libmanan, seeking reconstitution of the original CFI decision. The RTC issued a hearing order without requiring publication in the Official Gazette, ultimately granting Royales' request for reconstitution on November 25, 2002.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

The Republic of the Philippines appealed the RTC's decision, claiming that publication was necessary for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over the reconstitution petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision on April 29, 2005, and denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration on June 28, 2005.

Jurisdiction and Publication Requirement

The central issue in this case concerns whether publication in the Official Gazette is necessary for the court to acquire jurisdiction over a reconstitution petition for a final executory decision in a cadastral case. The petitioner argued for the applicability of Section 10 of Act 3110, which requires publication, while the respondent contended that Section 9 is applicable as it deals with cases where a decision has already been rendered but a decree of registration has not been issued.

Differentiation between Sections 9 and 10 of Act 3110

Section 9 relates to the reconstitution of pending land registration proceedings, while Section 10 governs reconstitution in the context of cadastral cases. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of clarity and precision in legislative terms, concluding that Section 10 is applicable since a cadastral proceeding had been initiated with a final decision that needed reconstitution.

Conclusion on Jurisdiction

The RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution due to non-compliance with publication requirements stipulated in Section 10

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.