G.R. No. 202872 & 206062 November 22, 2017
LOURDES M. PADAYHAG (HEIRS OF LOURDES M. PADAYHAG) vs. DIRECTOR OF LANDS and SOUTHERN MINDANAO COLLEGES (SMC); and SOUTHERN MINDANAO COLLEGES vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF LOURDES M. PADAYHAG

FACTS

This consolidated case involves six parcels of land in Pagadian City. The Heirs of Lourdes Padayhag (Padayhags) and Southern Mindanao Colleges (SMC) filed competing claims over these lots in Cadastral Case No. N-17. The Padayhags asserted ownership based on their parents’ original possession and a 1948 agreement with SMC’s predecessor concerning four lots, and prior occupation of the other two. SMC countered it acquired two lots through deeds of sale from other parties and claimed the four lots per the 1948 agreement.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), acting as a cadastral court, initially awarded all lots to SMC in 2006. Upon the Padayhags’ motion for reconsideration, the RTC reversed itself in 2007, awarding portions of the lots to the Padayhags, ordering rescission of the 1948 agreement, and declaring remaining portions as public land. SMC appealed this 2007 RTC Resolution to the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed SMC’s appeal and declared the RTC’s 2006 and 2007 decisions void for lack of jurisdiction due to alleged non-compliance with publication requirements for the initial hearing in the cadastral case.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The core legal principle is that jurisdiction in cadastral proceedings is acquired by strict compliance with statutory publication requirements. Under the Property Registration Decree, notice of the initial hearing must be published twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette. The Court, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, held that such publication is a jurisdictional requisite. Without proof of compliance, any decision rendered is void ab initio.
The Padayhags successfully demonstrated that the required publications occurred in the Official Gazette issues dated January 9 and January 16, 1967, which was prior to the initial hearing. SMC’s argument that the CA erred in finding non-publication was therefore unsubstantiated. Since the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction, its 2007 Resolution—which reversed the 2006 Decision and was the subject of SMC’s appeal—stood. The CA correctly examined the jurisdictional issue and found SMC’s appeal lacking in merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s dismissal of SMC’s appeal, thereby affirming the RTC’s 2007 Resolution in favor of the Padayhags. The separate petition in G.R. No. 206062 was denied due to SMC’s failure to pay the required docket fees.