G.R. No. 157826, November 12, 2004
Republic of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Spouses Edgardo and Ma. Teresa Bondoc, appellants.

FACTS

Spouses Edgardo and Ma. Teresa Bondoc filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of the original copies of OCT Nos. 1733 (394) and 1767 (406) covering two lots in Lucena City. The petition was based on their possession of the owner’s duplicate copies, as the originals were allegedly burned. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) set the petition for initial hearing, issued the requisite notices, and, after finding no opposition, granted the petition ex parte and ordered the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the titles.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), moved for reconsideration, arguing the RTC never acquired jurisdiction because the published notice of initial hearing failed to state the names and addresses of the adjoining owners, a requirement under Section 13 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26. The RTC denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, ruling that while the notice omitted the names, the adjoining owners were personally served, thus satisfying due process through substantial compliance.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution despite the published notice not specifying the names of adjoining owners.

RULING

Yes, the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that the applicable law was not Section 13 of R.A. No. 26, as argued by the parties, but Section 10 in relation to Section 9. The petition was for reconstitution based on the petitioners’ possession of the owner’s duplicate certificates. For such petitions, Section 10 expressly adopts the procedure under Section 9, which mandates publication, posting, and service of notice to specified government offices and persons named in the petition. Crucially, Section 9 does not require the notice to name adjoining owners or that such owners be served thirty days before the hearing.
Since the RTC’s order complied with all mandatory requirements under the correct provisions—publication in the Official Gazette, posting in conspicuous places, and service to the Solicitor General, Land Registration Authority, Register of Deeds, and others—jurisdiction was properly acquired. The omission of adjoining owners’ names in the notice was irrelevant, as it was not a statutory requirement for this specific type of reconstitution proceeding. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the RTC’s decision. The petition was dismissed.