G.R. No. 136588; July 20, 2000
By: Pearlie Jane Q. Binahon | July 25, 2018
FACTS:
In her Petition for Reconstitution of Title, the petitioner, Pilar Estipular, declared that she was the only surviving legal heir of the late Fermin Estipular, who died intestate in Caba, La Union. During his lifetime, Fermin was issued Certificate of Title covering a parcel of land located at Barrio Liquicia, Caba, La Union. The said Certificate of Title was either destroyed or burned as a result of the burning of the Register of Deeds of La Union during the last World War. The petitioner prayed that the said Certificate of Title be reconstituted in accordance with law.
The court a quo ordered that a Notice of Hearing be published for two successive issues of the Official Gazette and be posted at the main entrance of the Municipal Building of Caba, La Union at least thirty (30) days from the initial hearing. A Certificate of Posting was submitted by Branch Sheriff Obiena proving that copies of the Petition and Notice of Hearing were posted at the main entrance of Municipal Building. However, the National Printing Office advised the lower court to reschedule its original date of hearing as it could not meet the schedule of publication. Another Notice of Hearing was issued by the trial court, resetting the initial hearing. In view thereof, a second Certificate of Posting was issued by Branch Sheriff concerning the administrative case. In the same manner, the National Printing Office issued a Certificate of Publication showing that the said petition for reconstitution was published in the Official Gazette for two successive weeks.
The case was called to invite private oppositors to come forthwith, but nobody registered his/her opposition.
Although the Notice of Hearing had not been posted at the main entrance of the provincial building, the CA held that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not supposed substantial compliance with the requirements of Republic Act No. 26 is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the trial court over the case.
HELD:
Yes. Requirements for Reconstitution of Title Are Mandatory and Jurisdictional.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. It cannot be (1) granted by the agreement of the parties; (2) acquired, waived, enlarged or diminished by any act or omission of the parties; or (3) conferred by the acquiescence of the courts. In Section 13 of Republic Act No. 26 lays down the special requirements and procedure that must be followed before jurisdiction may be acquired over a petition for reconstitution of title.
Thus, before the trial court can acquire jurisdiction to hear and decide a reconstitution case, compliance with the following requisites is imperative:
1. That the notice of the petition be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, and posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing;
2. That the notice state among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed certificates of title if known, the name of the registered owner, the name of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, the owner of the adjoining properties and all other interested parties, the location, area and boundaries of the property, and the date on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file their claim of objection to the petition;
3. That a copy of the notice also be sent, by registered mail or otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein (i.e. the occupants or persons in possession of the property, the owner of the adjoining properties and all other interested parties) whose address is known at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing; and
4. That at the hearing, petitioner submit proof of publication, posting and service of the notice as directed by the court."
In the present case, it is undisputed that the Notice of Hearing of respondent's Petition for Reconstitution was not posted at the main entrance of the provincial building. Clearly, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.
