G.R. No. 104372 September 26, 1994
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and NORMA VARGAS CONJARES, represented by ESTER TAMAYO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Norma Vargas Conjares filed a petition for the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-6583, covering a parcel of land in Tanza, Cavite, alleging that both the owner’s duplicate and the original copy on file with the Register of Deeds were lost. The original was presumed destroyed in a 1959 fire at the provincial capitol. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition and ordered the reconstitution based on submitted documents, including an approved subdivision plan and tax declaration.
The Republic, through the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing the RTC never acquired jurisdiction due to defective publication of the notice of hearing. The certificate of publication showed the notice was published in two successive issues of the Official Gazette, but the second issue (November 6, 1989) was released for circulation only on November 14, 1989, which was merely 22 days before the December 6, 1989 initial hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, ruling there was substantial compliance since the first issue was released 30 days prior.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the reconstitution order despite alleged non-compliance with the mandatory publication requirement under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 26.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and set aside the reconstitution order. The publication requirement under Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 is jurisdictional. The law mandates that the notice of the petition must be published in the Official Gazette and released for circulation at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of initial hearing. This period is calculated from the release for circulation, not the date of the issue.
Here, the second publication was released only 22 days before the hearing, failing the 30-day mandate. Jurisprudence, such as Register of Deeds of Malabon vs. RTC, is clear that strict, not merely substantial, compliance with this requirement is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction. The purpose is to apprise the whole world of the proceeding, making them potential parties. Since the jurisdictional prerequisite was not met, the RTC never validly acquired jurisdiction over the petition. Consequently, its order for reconstitution and the appellate court’s affirmation thereof are void.