G.R. No. L-21368; March 31, 1966
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. EMILIO BENITEZ, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

In cadastral proceedings before the Court of First Instance of Leyte (1925-1928), Emilio Benitez and Eulalia Brillo were declared owners of Lot No. 2157 in Tacloban City, with an area of 14,548 sq.m., and Original Certificate of Title No. 17507 was issued to them on December 29, 1932. On June 19, 1958 (26 years later), Benitez and Brillo filed a petition in the same cadastral court to reopen the proceedings under Republic Act No. 931 , claiming that through oversight, a portion of 1,805 sq.m. (later determined as 3,745 sq.m.) was not included in the original survey. They prayed that this portion be designated as Lot No. 1 and adjudicated to them. The court admitted the petition, set it for hearing, and ordered notice to the Solicitor General, Provincial Fiscal, City Fiscal, and Register of Deeds. After a hearing on October 18, 1958, the court granted the claim, authorized a survey, and on April 14, 1962, rendered judgment declaring Benitez and his wife owners of the additional portion. The decision became final, and the spouses moved for execution. However, about 62 occupants, holding permits from the Director of Lands, opposed the decision. The Solicitor General, on behalf of the Director of Lands, filed a motion to set aside the judgment, arguing it was a nullity due to lack of the requisite publication and notice as required by law. The court denied the opposition and motion, as well as subsequent motions for reconsideration. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the cadastral court acquired jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings and adjudicate the additional portion of land to respondents without the publication and notice required by the Cadastral Act.

RULING

No. The petition for certiorari is granted. The decision of April 14, 1962, and its implementing orders are declared null and void. The Supreme Court held that while Republic Act No. 931 allows a person claiming title to a parcel of land in a cadastral proceeding, who was in actual possession but unable to file a claim within the time limit, to petition for reopening within ten years, such petition must comply with the procedure under the Cadastral Act ( Act No. 2259 ). This includes publication of notice in two successive issues of the Official Gazette and posting in conspicuous places on the land and in the municipal building. Publication is an essential basis for the court’s jurisdiction in cadastral cases, and including additional territory without new publication renders the order a nullity. Furthermore, Republic Act No. 931 reserves claims that do not refer to lands already alienated, reserved, leased, granted, or disposed of by the Government. Here, the additional portion was occupied by squatters claiming lease applications or revocable permits from the Bureau of Lands, indicating adverse claims that require threshing out in an appropriate action with due notice to the claimants and the Director of Lands, beyond the limited jurisdiction of the cadastral court.