Director of Lands vs. CA [G.R. No.

102858. July 28, 1997]

15AUG
Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J.
FACTS:
Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original registration of his title over 648 square
meters of land under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529. The land registration court in
its decision dated June 13, 1989 dismissed the petition “for want of jurisdiction”, in
compliance with the mandatory provision requiring publication of the notice of initial
hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The case was elevated to respondent
Court of Appeals which, set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered the
registration of the title in the name of Teodoro Abistado. The Court of Appeals ruled that
it was merely procedural and that the failure to cause such publication did not deprive
the trial court of its authority to grant the application. The Director of Lands represented
by the Solicitor General thus elevated this recourse to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Director of Lands is correct that newspaper publication of the notice
of initial hearing in an original land registration case is mandatory.

HELD:
YES. Petition was granted.

RATIO:
The pertinent part of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 requires publication of
the notice of initial hearing. It should be noted further that land registration is a
proceeding in rem. Being in rem, such proceeding requires constructive seizure of the
land as against all persons, including the state, who have rights to or interests in the
property. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. This being
so, the process must strictly be complied with.
The Supreme Court has no authority to dispense with such mandatory
requirement. The law is unambiguous and its rationale clear. Time and again, this
Court has declared that where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there
is no room for interpretation, vacillation or equivocation; there is room only for
application. There is no alternative. Thus, the application for land registration filed by
private respondents must be dismissed without prejudice to reapplication in the future,
after all the legal requisites shall have been duly complied with.

Director, Land Management Bureau vs. Court of

Appeals, G.R. No. 112567, February 7, 2000 (381
Phil. 761)
“failure to prove possession according to the manner and no. of years required by law”

Facts:

Respondent Aquilino Cariño filed a petition for registration for Lot 6 which is a sugar land claimed to
be owned by his mother of whom after she died he became the administrator of the property in
behalf of his brothers and sisters. By virtue of a deed of extrajudicial settlement, he became the sole
owner of the property. Report from the land investigator showed that the lot is agricultural in nature.
Respondent claims that the improvements introduced were in the form of bamboo clumps,
sugarcane and mango trees with the house of the tenant; that the land is free from claim and conflict
and is not covered by existing public land application and no patent or title has been issued to it; that
the respondent is on continuous, open and exclusive possession of the land as inherited from his
deceased mother. Respondent is the sole witness for his petition and the only oppositor is the
Bureau of Lands. The court granted the petition of the respondent. The petitioner filed a review for
certiorari contending that the respondent failed to submit proof of his fee simple title and has not
overthrown the presumption that the land is a portion of the public domain belonging to the state.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent established proof of his muniment of title to merit
registration of land in his favor?

Ruling:
The petition of the respondent is covered by the Land Registration Act providing
that a person alleging in his petition or application ownership in fee simple must
present muniments of title to substantiate his claim of ownership, presenting
evidence of his possession in the concept of an owner in a manner and number
of years required by law. The manner shall be open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession of the property known as agricultural land of the public
domain for 30 years preceding the filing of application for confirmation
(Commonwealth Act No. 141).

Possession of public land however long never confers title upon the possessor
unless occupant of the same is under claim of ownership for the required period.
Even in the absence of opposition the court can deny registration of land under
the Torrens System on ground that an applicant failed to establish his ownership
by a fee simple on the property sought to be registered.

The respondent only traced his own possession in the land in 1949 by virtue
of extrajudicialsettlement and order and at the same time he filed his application for registration
in 1975 thus he was in possession of said land only for 26 years. His mere allegation that his
mother was in possession of the land since 1911 is self serving and hearsay and is inadmissible
as evidence. The tax receipts and tax declaration he offered as evidence do not substantiate clear
proof of ownership. Thus, with his failure to prove that his predecessor-in-interest occupied the
land under the condition laid down by law, he can only establish his possession of the land from
1949. Respondent failed to prove his muniment of title for the registration of the land under the
Registration Act with failure to present convincing and positive proof of his continuous, open,
uninterrupted and notorious occupation of lot 6 in the concept of an owner for at least 30 years.