Director of Lands vs. CA [G.R. No. 102858. July 28, 1997]

15 Aug



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.


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.


YES. Petition was granted.


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.

1 Comment

Posted by on August 15, 2012 in Case Digests, Statutory Construction


Tags: , ,

One response to “Director of Lands vs. CA [G.R. No. 102858. July 28, 1997]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: