GR 149114; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149114 ; July 21, 2006
SPS. TAN SING PAN and MAGDALENA S. VERANGA, petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
In 1931, the Director of Lands instituted Cadastral Case No. 67 to settle titles in Atimonan, Quezon. Over six decades later, in 1996, petitioners Spouses Tan Sing Pan and Magdalena Veranga filed an Answer in the same cadastral case, claiming ownership over Lot No. 18009. They asserted they acquired the lot in 1978 from the heirs of the original claimant and had been in possession for about 18 years, tacking their possession to their predecessors for a total of almost 60 years. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), acting as a special land registration court, admitted their Answer, set it for hearing, and, after finding compliance with posting and notice requirements and no opposition filed, rendered a decision confirming their title.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals solely on the jurisdictional ground that petitioners failed to prove publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in the Official Gazette. The CA granted the appeal, reversed the MCTC decision, and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition for registration despite the alleged lack of proof of publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in the Official Gazette.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. The Court held that publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in the Official Gazette is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement in land registration proceedings. This requirement cannot be dispensed with, as it serves as notice to the whole world. The petitioners, as the claimants seeking judicial confirmation of title, bore the burden of proving by positive evidence that this publication was complied with. They failed to discharge this burden.
The Court rejected petitioners’ argument that the 1996 proceeding was a mere continuation of the 1931 cadastral case, thus allegedly inheriting the initial publication from that time. The filing of their Answer after more than 60 years was treated as a new application for registration, necessitating a new publication to vest the court with jurisdiction. Their failure to present any proof of such publication from the original cadastral records was fatal. Consequently, the MCTC never acquired jurisdiction over the application, rendering its decision confirming title void ab initio.