G.R. No. L-68303. January 15, 1988.
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals), and Princess Emme Atik Kiram, respondents.

FACTS

The private respondent, Princess Emme Atik Kiram, niece of the late Sultan Jamalul Kiram, filed a petition for the judicial reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title No. P-133, allegedly covering three parcels of land in Sulu with a total area of 1,024 hectares. She claimed the original title on file with the Register of Deeds and the owner’s duplicate copy were both destroyed in a fire in February 1974. The petition was granted by the then Court of First Instance of Sulu, and its decision was affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court.
The Republic, through the Solicitor General, opposed the petition, arguing non-compliance with the mandatory publication and notice requirements of Republic Act No. 26 (the law governing judicial reconstitution of titles). Specifically, the Republic contended there was a lack of proper publication and posting of the notice of hearing, and an absence of proof that the alleged lost title was in force at the time of its loss. The trial court had based its reconstitution order on evidence including a sheriff’s return, a certificate of publication in the Official Gazette, survey plans, tax declarations, and copies of Act No. 3430 and Proclamation No. 1530, which the respondent claimed were the land grants from which Sultan Kiram derived ownership.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the reconstitution of title despite alleged fatal non-compliance with the jurisdictional notice requirements under Republic Act No. 26 .

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled for the Republic and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petition for reconstitution was fatally defective due to the petitioner’s failure to strictly comply with the mandatory notice requirements prescribed in Section 13 of Republic Act No. 26 . The law requires the notice of hearing to be published twice in the Official Gazette and posted on the main entrances of the provincial capitol and the municipal hall of the locality where the land is situated. The Court emphasized that these requirements are jurisdictional; failure to comply confers no jurisdiction upon the court.
The record showed that while there was a certificate of publication in the Official Gazette, there was no competent proof that the notices were actually posted on the main entrances of the provincial and municipal buildings as required. The private respondent merely presented a sheriff’s return containing an order to the Station Commander to post the notices. This order was not proof of actual compliance by the Station Commander. The Court rejected the invocation of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, stating that Republic Act No. 26 specifically places the burden on the applicant to submit proof of such posting. Furthermore, there was no showing that adjacent owners or other interested parties were actually notified. Given the vast area of land involved and the dubious sources presented for reconstitution (general statutes rather than specific documents listed under R.A. No. 26 ), strict adherence to the procedural safeguards was imperative to protect the interests of the state and potential claimants. The reconstitution proceedings were therefore declared null and void.