GR 111715; (June, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111715 & 112876; June 8, 2000
MANUEL SILVESTRE BERNARDO, et al. and ANITA S. LIM, et al., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE, INC., et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Manuel Silvestre Bernardo filed a petition for the judicial reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12658, allegedly covering a vast parcel of land in Quezon City, in the name of his father, Tomas Bernardo. He claimed both the owner’s duplicate and original copy of the title were lost. The Regional Trial Court of Pasig granted the petition in 1985, finding compliance with publication and posting requirements under Republic Act No. 26 . The reconstituted title was subsequently issued. Years later, the Araneta Institute of Agriculture and other entities, claiming ownership of portions of the land, challenged the reconstitution. They argued the Pasig RTC lacked jurisdiction as the property was situated in Quezon City, not within its territorial jurisdiction. They further contended the petition was fatally defective for failing to state the names of all occupants and adjoining owners, and that the title was spurious.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court of Pasig validly acquired jurisdiction to order the reconstitution of TCT No. 12658.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision nullifying the reconstitution order. The Pasig RTC lacked jurisdiction over the petition. Jurisdiction in land registration and reconstitution cases is vested in the court of the province or city where the land lies. The petition itself stated the property was in Quezon City. The fact that the title was originally issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal when the area was part of that province did not confer jurisdiction on the Pasig court after Quezon City’s creation. Territorial jurisdiction is mandated by law and cannot be conferred by consent or waived. Furthermore, the petition failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 . It did not state the names and addresses of the occupants and all persons who may have an interest in the property, including the adjoining owners. The listed adjoining claimants (e.g., Far Eastern University, San Pedro Estate) were not notified. This failure deprived them of due process and rendered the proceedings void. The reconstituted title, being based on a void order, is likewise null and void.