G.R. No. 88623 February 5, 1990
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MALABON, METRO MANILA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALABON, METRO MANILA, BRANCH 170, respondent.

FACTS

The Register of Deeds of Malabon filed a petition for the judicial reconstitution of the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-3899, which was missing from the registry. The petition was filed under Republic Act No. 26 after a deed of absolute sale concerning the property could not be registered due to the missing title. The Regional Trial Court gave due course to the petition and ordered the publication of the notice of hearing in two consecutive issues of the Official Gazette, setting the hearing for August 17, 1988.
At the hearing, the petitioner presented evidence of publication, including a certification from the National Printing Office. However, it was established that the specific issues of the Official Gazette containing the notice (for May 23 and May 30, 1988) were only released for circulation on October 3, 1988. This date was forty-seven days after the scheduled hearing on August 17, 1988, contrary to the statutory requirement for publication at least thirty days prior to the hearing.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution despite the notice of hearing being published in the Official Gazette only after the date of the scheduled hearing, in violation of the mandatory publication period under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 26 .

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction. The publication requirement under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 26 is mandatory and jurisdictional. The law explicitly requires the notice to be published “at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing.” The purpose is to apprise all interested parties nationwide of the proceeding, allowing them a reasonable period to appear and oppose the petition. In this case, the Official Gazette issues containing the notice were circulated only on October 3, 1988, which was forty-seven days after the August 17 hearing. This defective publication was a fatal jurisdictional flaw. The Court, citing precedent, emphasized that when the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is statutorily prescribed, strict compliance is essential; otherwise, the proceedings are void. The petition was also dismissible on an additional ground: the Register of Deeds was not the proper party to file it, as the relevant provision allowing such action had been repealed. Only the registered owner, assigns, or persons with an interest in the property are authorized petitioners under the law. Consequently, the petition for certiorari was denied.