GR 176441; (June, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 176441 ; June 17, 2008
HEIRS OF MARCELA NAVARRO represented by MARIO DACALOS, petitioner, vs. WILLY Y. GO, respondent.
FACTS
The petitioners, heirs of Marcela Navarro, filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of title over Lot No. 4829, alleging the original certificate of title was destroyed during World War II. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition in 1996, leading to the issuance of reconstituted OCT No. RO-3107 in Navarro’s name. The petitioners complied with publication requirements and notified adjacent lot owners and government agencies, but did not provide personal notice to respondent Willy Go.
Subsequently, respondent Go filed a petition to cancel the reconstituted title, asserting he was the actual possessor of the lot and that the property was already covered by an existing title (TCT No. 6807) in his name. He argued the reconstitution proceedings were void for lack of jurisdiction due to the petitioners’ failure to notify him, the actual occupant, as required by law. The RTC denied his petition, prompting an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the reconstitution proceedings and the resulting reconstituted title are null and void for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to notify the actual occupant of the property.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision declaring the reconstitution proceedings and OCT No. RO-3107 null and void. The legal logic centers on strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirements for reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26 . Section 13 of the law mandates that notice of the petition must be served upon the actual occupants of the land and all persons named in the reconstituted certificate of title. This requirement is indispensable for the court to acquire jurisdiction.
The Court found that respondent Go was in actual possession of the property at the time of the reconstitution petition, a fact supported by a separate ejectment case filed against him by the petitioners. The petitioners’ failure to serve personal notice upon Go, the actual occupant, constituted a fatal defect that rendered the entire reconstitution proceeding void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the purpose of such notice is to afford due process to every interested party, and its absence invalidates the proceeding regardless of the merits of the ownership claim. The nullification of the reconstituted title, however, does not preclude the petitioners from pursuing other legal avenues to establish their ownership.