Republic v. Herbieto

Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc — Benin v

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: Tuason & Co., Inc.Previous case

Primary source ↗Next: Duran v. OliviaNext case→

Title

Republic v. Herbieto

Case Decision Date

G.R. No. 156117 May 26, 2005

The relationship of the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Jeremias and David Herbieto, G.R. No. 156117, May 26, 2005, to the assigned topic of original land registration under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Notice of Initial Hearing, Publication) is DIRECT. The triggering controversy arose when the Herbieto brothers filed a single application for the original registration of two distinct parcels of land, Lot No. 8422 and Lot No. 8423, before the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, which application was opposed by the Republic of the Philippines on both substantive and procedural grounds. The Supreme Court of the Philippines granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines, reversing the Decision of the Court of Appeals and dismissing the application for land registration. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that while Section 23, paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides that publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the land registration court, the separate requirement of publishing the notice of initial hearing once in a newspaper of general circulation remains an absolute, mandatory, and jurisdictional prerequisite of procedural due process under the Torrens system.

Core Doctrine

The Herbieto Rule on Mandated Newspaper Publication: While Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides that publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the land registration court, the separate requirement of publishing the notice of initial hearing once in a newspaper of general circulation is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement of procedural due process. The newspaper publication must occur prior to the date of the scheduled initial hearing; otherwise, the late publication is null and void, the court fails to acquire jurisdiction over the land, and all subsequent proceedings are completely void ab initio.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156117)

Case DigestWeek 3–4 — The Registries of Deeds and Original Registration

Republic v. Herbieto

G.R. No. 156117 · May 26, 2005 · Supreme Court

Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc — Benin v

Gist

Core Doctrine

Facts

On June 25, 1963 the CENRO of the DENR certified the subject lots alienable and disposable under Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1063.
On June 25, 1976 Jeremias and David Herbieto bought Lot No. 8422 and Lot No. 8423 in Cabangahan, Consolacion, Cebu, from their parents, spouses Gregorio Herbieto and Isabel Owatan.
On September 23, 1998 the brothers filed a single, joint application for registration and confirmation of title over the two separate parcels in the MTC of Consolacion, Cebu.
On December 11, 1998 the Republic, through the OSG, opposed: the required adverse possession was wanting, the muniments not genuine, and the lots part of the inalienable public domain.
On April 29, 1999 the court set the initial hearing for September 3, 1999. The notice was posted on the lots and at the municipal building on July 27, 1999 and published in the Official Gazette on August 2, 1999.
On September 3, 1999 the court held the hearing, entered special default against the whole world save the Republic, and commissioned the Clerk of Court to receive evidence ex parte.
On December 19, 1999 — more than three months after the hearing — the notice was finally published in The Freeman Banat News, a Cebu City daily.
On December 21, 1999 the MTC decreed registration, Lot No. 8422 to Jeremias and Lot No. 8423 to David, and on February 2, 2000 declared the judgment final and directed the LRA to issue the decree. On November 22, 2002 the CA affirmed in CA-G.R. CV No. 67625, holding the lots alienable since 1963 and possessed for thirty-five years. The Second Division decided on May 26, 2005.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner. The Republic argued the MTC never acquired jurisdiction, the newspaper publication under Section 23 having come more than three months after the initial hearing; that the joint application over two separately owned lots is unauthorised absent co-ownership; and that the brothers failed to prove possession since June 12, 1945, the land having been declared alienable only on June 25, 1963, so that nothing before that date counts.

Respondents. The Herbietos argued jurisdiction attached because the notice was published in the Official Gazette before the hearing, which the proviso to Section 23 makes sufficient to confer jurisdiction; that the later newspaper publication was a mere procedural detail and the court's or the LRA's delay should not prejudice their substantive rights; that the joint application is a harmless misjoinder curable by severance; and that the lots had become private patrimonial property by extraordinary acquisitive prescription under Article 1137, being alienable since 1963 and possessed in the concept of owner for thirty-five years before the 1998 application.

Common Ground / Stipulations (if any). Both accepted the dates of the notice's posting, Gazette publication, and newspaper publication, and that the lots were declared alienable and disposable on June 25, 1963.

Issue

MAIN ISSUE (Publication-centered). Whether the MTC acquired jurisdiction under Section 23 where the notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation more than three months after the initial hearing had already been held.

SECONDARY ISSUES. Whether a single application over two distinct parcels separately owned by two applicants is a fatal jurisdictional defect; and whether the brothers met the substantive requirements, the land having been classified alienable only on June 25, 1963.

ANCILLARY / INCIDENTAL ISSUES (if any). None separately resolved.

Ruling

On the MAIN ISSUE: NO, the court never acquired jurisdiction. Though the proviso says Gazette publication suffices to confer jurisdiction, the dual publication requirement is mandatory — once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation. Publication in The Freeman Banat News on December 19, 1999, over three months after the September 3, 1999 hearing, was worthless and ineffective: anyone with a valid claim was deprived of due process, having been prevented from opposing at the hearing. Late publication equals no publication, so the whole proceeding, the Judgment of December 21, 1999 and the Order of February 2, 2000 are null and void. On misjoinder: NOT fatal — Section 14 contemplates one application for several parcels only where they belong to the same applicant or are owned in common, but separate owners filing together is a mere misjoinder of causes of action and parties, which under the suppletory Rules of Court is no ground for dismissal; the court should have ordered severance so each claim could be heard separately. On the merits: NO registrable title — Section 48(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141 as amended by P.D. No. 1073, with Section 14(1), requires possession in the concept of owner since June 12, 1945 or earlier; the lots having been classified alienable only on June 25, 1963, all possession before that date is legally ineffective, since under the Regalian doctrine unclassified public forest land is inalienable and no length of possession can convert it. The dispositive portion reads verbatim: "WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67625, dated 22 November 2002, is REVERSED. The Judgment of the MTC of Consolacion, Cebu in LRC Case No. N-75, dated 21 December 1999, and its Order, dated 02 February 2000 are declared NULL AND VOID. Respondents' application for registration is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED"

Ratio

Notice is given three ways — publication, mailing and posting — and publication is itself twofold. The proviso settles what confers jurisdiction over the res; it was never meant to dispense with newspaper publication, which due process requires because the Gazette is not widely read and is often delayed.
Publication must precede the hearing to do its work. Its purpose is to constructively seize the land and let anyone with an adverse interest come forward; published afterwards, it reaches people already defaulted without notice.
A proceeding in rem demands strict and literal compliance. Because the decree binds the whole world, jurisdiction over the res arises only on full compliance — and lapses by the court or its personnel cannot supply a jurisdiction never acquired.
Misjoinder is a matter of arrangement, not of power. Severance cures it; dismissal is not the remedy.
Possession counts only from classification. Land not yet released as alienable is outside private appropriation, so time spent on it adds nothing toward the statutory period.

Doctrine

Doctrines / Rules / Principles Laid Down.

Though Gazette publication confers jurisdiction, publication once in a newspaper of general circulation is a mandatory, jurisdictional requirement of due process that must occur before the scheduled initial hearing; done later it is null, the court acquires no jurisdiction, and everything following is void ab initio.
Lapses by the court or the LRA in publishing on time excuse no one and confer no jurisdiction. And for Section 14(1), possession before the land was classified alienable and disposable is legally ineffective and cannot be counted.

Distinctions / Limitations / Qualifications.

Misjoinder of causes of action and parties is procedural, not jurisdictional, and warrants severance rather than dismissal. And the "private rights" exception to a reservation protects only a claimant who proves by clear and convincing evidence that a registrable title had already vested in him or his predecessors before the proclamation issued.

Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

DIRECT: the Court made newspaper publication absolute and non-waivable under Section 23 — compliance with every other requirement, Gazette publication included, cannot cure its absence before the hearing. Treating it as jurisdictional prevents the anomalous titling of public land and guarantees the world a real, timely and effective chance to oppose.

Separate Opinions

None. The Second Division decided unanimously through Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, with Justices Puno, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Tinga concurring.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Facts

On June 25, 1963: Community Environment and Natural Resources Office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources issued a certification finding that the subject lots were alienable and disposable by virtue of Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1063.
On June 25, 1976: The Herbieto brothers, namely Jeremias Herbieto and David Herbieto, purchased Lot No. 8422 and Lot No. 8423, situated in Cabangahan, Consolacion, Cebu, from the parents of the Herbieto brothers, the spouses Gregorio Herbieto and Isabel Owatan.
On September 23, 1998: The Herbieto brothers filed a single, joint application for original land registration and confirmation of title over the two separate parcels of land, Lot No. 8422 and Lot No. 8423, before the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu.
On December 11, 1998: The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a written Opposition to the application, asserting that the Herbieto brothers failed to comply with the adverse possession period required by law, that the muniments of title were not genuine, and that the subject lots were part of the inalienable public domain.
On April 29, 1999: The Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, issued an Order setting the initial hearing of the land registration case on September 3, 1999, at 8:30 a.m..
On July 27, 1999: A copy of the Notice of Initial Hearing was posted in a conspicuous place on the subject lots, and on the bulletin board of the municipal building of Consolacion, Cebu.
On August 2, 1999: The Notice of Initial Hearing was published in the Official Gazette.
On September 3, 1999: The Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, conducted the scheduled initial hearing, issued an Order of Special Default against the whole world with only the Republic of the Philippines opposing, and commissioned the Clerk of Court to receive the evidence of the Herbieto brothers ex parte.
On December 19, 1999: The Notice of Initial Hearing was published in the newspaper The Freeman Banat News, a daily newspaper printed in Cebu City and circulated in the province of Cebu—occurring more than three months after the initial hearing.
On December 21, 1999: The Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, promulgated a Judgment ordering the original registration and confirmation of title of Jeremias Herbieto over Lot No. 8422, and of David Herbieto over Lot No. 8423.
On February 2, 2000: The Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, issued an Order declaring the Judgment of December 21, 1999, final and executory, and directing the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority to issue a decree of registration.
On an unspecified date: The Republic of the Philippines appealed the Judgment of the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, to the Court of Appeals.
On November 22, 2002: The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 67625, affirming the Judgment of the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, on the ground that the subject lots had been alienable since 1963 and that the Herbieto brothers had possessed the subject properties for thirty-five years prior to the filing of the application.
On an unspecified date: The Republic of the Philippines elevated the case to the Supreme Court of the Philippines via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
On May 26, 2005: The Supreme Court of the Philippines Second Division promulgated the Decision granting the Petition for Review on Certiorari, setting aside the rulings of the MTC and CA, and dismissing the application for original registration.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner/Prosecution (Republic of the Philippines).

The Republic of the Philippines argues that the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, did not acquire jurisdiction over the land registration case because of a fatal procedural defect in the publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing.
The Republic of the Philippines contends that under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Notice of Initial Hearing must be published both in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation. Because the newspaper publication in The Freeman Banat News occurred more than three months after the date of the actual initial hearing, the statutory publication requirement was violated.
The Republic of the Philippines asserts that the joint application filed by the Herbieto brothers is procedurally defective because the application covers two separate parcels of land individually and separately owned by two different applicants, which is not authorized under Presidential Decree No. 1529 unless the applicants are co-owners.
The Republic of the Philippines maintains that the Herbieto brothers failed to prove the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject lots since June 12, 1945, or earlier, as required under Section 14, paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, because the land was only declared alienable and disposable on June 25, 1963, and any possession prior to such declaration cannot be counted for registration purposes.

Respondent/Defense (Jeremias and David Herbieto).

The Herbieto brothers argue that the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, acquired valid jurisdiction over the land registration case because the Notice of Initial Hearing was duly published in the Official Gazette prior to the date of the initial hearing, satisfying the explicit proviso of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 that publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
The Herbieto brothers contend that the subsequent publication of the notice in The Freeman Banat News was a mere procedural detail, and the failure of the court or the Land Registration Authority to publish the notice on time should not prejudice the substantive property rights of the applicants.
The Herbieto brothers assert that the joint application covering separate lots is a harmless misjoinder of causes of action that does not affect the jurisdiction of the registration court and may be cured by severing the claims.
The Herbieto brothers maintain that the subject properties became private patrimonial lands through extraordinary acquisitive prescription of thirty years under Article 1137 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, as the land had been alienable and disposable since June 25, 1963, and was possessed by the Herbieto brothers in the concept of owner for thirty-five years prior to the filing of the application in 1998.

Issue

MAIN ISSUE. Whether the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, acquired valid jurisdiction over the land registration case under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, despite the fact that the Notice of Initial Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation more than three months after the initial hearing was conducted.

SECONDARY ISSUES.

Whether the procedural irregularity of filing a single application for original registration covering two distinct parcels of land separately owned by two different applicants is a fatal defect that deprives the land registration court of jurisdiction.
Whether the Herbieto brothers complied with the substantive requirements under the Public Land Act and Presidential Decree No. 1529 to register the subject lots, considering that the land was only classified as alienable and disposable on June 25, 1963.

Ruling

Ruling on the MAIN ISSUE. NO. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, failed to acquire jurisdiction over the land registration case. The Supreme Court held that while Section 23, paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides that publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction, the dual publication requirement is mandatory. The law requires the notice of initial hearing to be published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. Because the publication in The Freeman Banat News occurred only on December 19, 1999—more than three months after the initial hearing was held on September 3, 1999—the publication was worthless and ineffective. Any person who had a valid claim of ownership over the subject lots was deprived of procedural due process because the claimant was prevented from opposing the application during the scheduled initial hearing. Consequently, the late newspaper publication is legally equivalent to no publication at all, rendering the entire land registration proceedings, the Judgment of December 21, 1999, and the Order of February 2, 2000, completely null and void for want of jurisdiction.

Ruling on SECONDARY ISSUE 1. NO. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the misjoinder of causes of action and parties in a land registration case is not a fatal jurisdictional defect. The Supreme Court held that while Section 14 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 contemplates that a single application may cover several parcels of land only if the parcels belong to the same applicant or are owned in common by joint applicants, the filing of a single application by separate owners of separate lots merely constitutes a misjoinder of causes of action and parties. Under the Rules of Court, which apply suppletorily to land registration cases, a misjoinder of causes of action and parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, should have simply ordered the severance of the misjoined causes of action so that the claims of Jeremias Herbieto and David Herbieto could be heard separately, rather than dismissing the application on this ground.

Ruling on SECONDARY ISSUE 2. NO. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Herbieto brothers failed to establish a registrable title over the subject lots under the Public Land Act and Presidential Decree No. 1529. The Supreme Court held that under Section 48, paragraph b of the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141), as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073, and Section 14, paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, applicants for judicial confirmation of an imperfect title must prove that the possession of the land in the concept of owner commenced since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Because the subject properties were only classified as alienable and disposable on June 25, 1963, any possession of the public land by the Herbieto brothers prior to June 25, 1963, was legally ineffective and could not be credited for purposes of original registration. Under the Regalian doctrine, unclassified public forest lands are strictly inalienable, and no amount of possession can convert public forest lands into private property. Since the possession of the Herbieto brothers in the concept of owner did not commence on June 12, 1945, or earlier, the application must be denied.

Dispositive portion (verbatim). The final dispositive portion of the Supreme Court of the Philippines in G.R. No. 156117, dated May 26, 2005, is quoted verbatim as follows:

WHEREFORE , based on the foregoing, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67625, dated 22 November 2002, is REVERSED. The Judgment of the MTC of Consolacion, Cebu in LRC Case No. N-75, dated 21 December 1999, and its Order, dated 02 February 2000 are declared NULL AND VOID. Respondents' application for registration is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED

Ratio

The Dual Publication Requirement under Section 23: Under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, notice of the initial hearing must be given by three distinct means: publication, mailing, and posting. The statutory provision mandates that publication must be made once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation. Although the proviso in Section 23 states that publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the land registration court, this proviso was never intended to dispense with the newspaper publication. The newspaper publication is an indispensable requirement of procedural due process because the Official Gazette is not widely read or circulated, and is frequently delayed in the circulation of the Official Gazette.
The Invalidity of Late Newspaper Publication: The primary purpose of publication under the Torrens system is to constructively seize the land and to notify the entire world of the land registration proceedings. This notification enables all persons who have any adverse interest in the property to come forward and show cause why the land registration application should not be granted. For this notification to be legally effective, the publication must occur prior to the date of the scheduled initial hearing. When the newspaper publication is made more than three months after the initial hearing, potential oppositors are deprived of a day in court and default orders are issued against such oppositors without notice. Therefore, late publication is legally equivalent to no publication and fails to vest the court with jurisdiction over the res.
The Jurisdictional Nature of Original Land Registration: Land registration under the Property Registration Decree is a proceeding in rem that binds the whole world. A court can only validly exercise jurisdiction over the res if there is strict and literal compliance with all the mandatory and jurisdictional requirements of the statute. Lapses on the part of the court or the personnel of the court in scheduling hearings or delay in publishing notices cannot excuse non-compliance with the law, nor can lapses vest the land registration court with a jurisdiction the court did not legally acquire.
The Regalian Doctrine and Land Classification: Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of whatever classification belong to the State unless a clear, positive, and prior grant is established. Public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land remain part of the inalienable public domain. Prior to the official reclassification of a public land as alienable and disposable on June 25, 1963, the land was unregistrable and could not be the object of private possession.
The Substantive Possession Period under PD 1073: Section 48, paragraph b of the Public Land Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073, strictly requires applicants to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier. This requirement is substantive, and the possession must be reckoned only from the date the land was officially declared alienable and disposable.

Doctrine

Doctrines / Rules / Principles Laid Down.

The Herbieto Rule on Mandated Newspaper Publication: While Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides that publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the land registration court, the separate requirement of publishing the notice of initial hearing once in a newspaper of general circulation is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement of procedural due process. The newspaper publication must occur prior to the date of the scheduled initial hearing; otherwise, the late publication is null and void, the court fails to acquire jurisdiction over the land, and all subsequent proceedings are completely void ab initio.
The Rule on Courting Lapses: Lapses on the part of the land registration court or the Land Registration Authority in delaying the publication of the notice of initial hearing cannot excuse a party from non-compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the law, nor can lapses vest the court with jurisdiction.
The Substantive Reckoning of Possession: For purposes of original registration under Section 14, paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, possession of public lands prior to the classification of the public lands as alienable and disposable is legally ineffective and cannot be counted toward the required period of possession under the law.

Distinctions / Limitations / Qualifications.

The Exception on Misjoinder of Causes: The misjoinder of causes of action and parties in a land registration application is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, and does not warrant the dismissal of the application. The proper remedy is to order the severance of the misjoined claims so that the claims can be heard and decided separately.
The Vested Private Rights Exception: The sovereign authority of the State to reserve public lands for military or public purposes under a presidential proclamation is subject to "private rights" already existing over the land. But to qualify as a private right exempt from the reservation, the applicant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that a registrable title had already vested in the applicant or the predecessors-in-interest of the applicant prior to the issuance of the proclamation.

Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification of Relationship: DIRECT.
Integration: The case of Republic v. Herbieto is a seminal and controlling precedent on Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 because the case establishes the absolute and non-waivable character of the newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing. The decision clarifies that even if the land registration court complies with all other notice requirements—such as publication in the Official Gazette, mailing, and posting—the failure to publish the notice in a newspaper of general circulation prior to the scheduled hearing violates procedural due process and divests the court of jurisdiction. By treating newspaper publication as a jurisdictional prerequisite, G.R. No. 156117 prevents the anomalous titling of public lands and safeguards the integrity of the Torrens system by ensuring that the whole world is afforded a real, timely, and effective opportunity to oppose original land registration applications.

Separate Opinions

NOT APPLICABLE / NOT IN RECORD. (The decision of the Second Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines was rendered unanimously, with Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario as the ponente, and with Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno, Alicia Austria-Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., and Dante O. Tinga concurring, without any separate concurring or dissenting opinions filed).

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Special Law

Section 23, P.D. No. 1529

Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc

Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree, 1978)

The court shall, within five days from filing of the application, issue an order setting the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than forty-five days nor later than ninety days from the date of the order.

The public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of the application for land registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting.

1. By publication.

Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause notice of initial hearing to be published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however, that the publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Said notice shall be addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the land involved including the adjoining owners so far as known, and "to all whom it may concern". Said notice shall also require all persons concerned to appear in court at a certain date and time to show cause why the prayer of said application shall not be granted.

2. By mailing.

(a) Mailing of notice to persons named in the application. The Commissioner of Land Registration shall also, within seven days after publication of said notice in the Official Gazette, as hereinbefore provided, cause a copy of the notice of initial hearing to be mailed to every person named in the notice whose address is known.

(b) Mailing of notice to the Secretary of Public Highways, the Provincial Governor and the Mayor. If the applicant requests to have the line of a public way or road determined, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a copy of said notice of initial hearing to be mailed to the Secretary of Public Highways, to the Provincial Governor, and to the Mayor of the municipality or city, as the case may be, in which the land lies.

(c) Mailing of notice to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Solicitor General, the Director of Lands, the Director of Public Works, the Director of Forest Development, the Director of Mines and the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. If the land borders on a river, navigable stream or shore, or on an arm of the sea where a river or harbor line has been established, or on a lake, or if it otherwise appears from the application or the proceedings that a tenant-farmer or the national government may have a claim adverse to that of the applicant, notice of the initial hearing shall be given in the same manner to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Solicitor General, the Director of Lands, the Director of Mines and/or the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, as may be appropriate.

3. By posting.

The Commissioner of Land Registration shall also cause a duly attested copy of the notice of initial hearing to be posted by the sheriff of the province or city, as the case may be, or by his deputy, in a conspicuous place on each parcel of land included in the application and also in a conspicuous place on the bulletin board of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land or portion thereof is situated, fourteen days at least before the date of initial hearing.

The court may also cause notice to be served to such other persons and in such manner as it may deem proper.

The notice of initial hearing shall, in form, be substantially as follows:

(Caption and Title)

NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING

To (here insert the names of all persons appearing to have an interest and the adjoining owners so far as known, and to all whom it may concern):

An application (or petition) having been filed in the above-entitled case by (full name and address) praying for the registration and confirmation (or for the settlement and adjudication, in case of petition in cadastral proceedings) of title to the following described lands:

(Insert description)

You are hereby served this notice to appear before this Court at its session to be held at _________________ on the ______________ day of _______________, 19 ______, at _____________ o'clock in the _________ then and there to present such claims as you may have to said lands or any portion thereof, and to submit evidence in support of such claim; and unless you appear at said Court at the time and place aforesaid, your default will be recorded and the title to the lands will be adjudicated and determined in accordance with law and the evidence before the Court, and thereafter you will forever be barred from contesting said application (or petition) or any decree entered thereon.

Witness, the Hon. ________________________ Judge of the Court of First Instance of _______ this _______ day of _________________, in the year 19______.

Attest:

Commissioner of Land Registration

Why it is cited here

The holding this case is still good for, as distinct from the one it is famous for losing.

Publication in the Official Gazette "shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction," but the requirement of publishing the notice of initial hearing "once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines" remains a separate and mandatory command.

The Court follows Director of Lands v. Abistado exactly: jurisdiction and compliance are two questions, and satisfying the first does not excuse the second. The purpose of the newspaper requirement is to reach a readership the Gazette does not.

This part of Herbieto has never been disturbed, which is worth stating plainly. What Malabanan overruled was its substantive holding on Section 14(1) — that possession before the alienability declaration does not count. Its procedural holding on publication stands.

So the case must be cited with care: sound on Section 23, superseded on Section 14(1). A brief that cites it for the latter is citing overruled law.

Special Law

Section 19, P.D. No. 1529

Amendments

Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree, 1978)

Amendments to the application including joinder, substitution, or discontinuance as to parties may be allowed by the court at any stage of the proceedings upon just and reasonable terms.

Amendments which shall consist in a substantial change in the boundaries or an increase in area of the land applied for or which involve the inclusion of an additional land shall be subject to the same requirements of publication and notice as in an original application.

Why it is cited here

The problem with filing one application for two distinct parcels.

Amendments "which shall consist in a substantial change in the boundaries or an increase in area of the land applied for or which involve the inclusion of an additional land shall be subject to the same requirements of publication and notice as in an original application."

The principle behind the sentence is what matters here: publication is measured against the land, not against the applicant. Every parcel must be described in a notice that actually went out, because the people who might oppose differ from parcel to parcel — different neighbours, different occupants, different claimants.

The Herbieto brothers filed a single application covering Lot No. 8422 and Lot No. 8423. Whatever convenience that offered, it does not reduce what the notice must contain or whom it must reach.

Which is the transferable rule: joinder of parcels is a matter of procedure; notice is a matter of jurisdiction. Combining applications never combines the notice requirements.

Special Law

Section 2, P.D. No. 1529

Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts

Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree, 1978)

Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.

Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. The court through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land Registration Commission with two certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land registration, with the exception of stenographic notes, within five days from the filing or issuance thereof.

Why it is cited here

The reason a notice defect ends the case rather than delaying it.

Proceedings "shall be in rem" and courts have "exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration."

In an in rem proceeding, publication is the service of process on the world. Without it the court never acquires jurisdiction over the res, so its judgment binds nobody — not the Republic, not an oppositor, not a later buyer.

The Court accordingly dismissed the application rather than remanding for republication, and the choice is instructive. A jurisdictional defect is not cured by later compliance in the same case; the proceeding was void from the start and there is nothing to save.

The remedy is to file again and publish properly — which is also why the substantive discussion in Herbieto was later dismissed as obiter. A court without jurisdiction cannot lay down binding doctrine, which is precisely how Malabanan disposed of it.

Source: Republic v. Herbieto, G.R. No. 156117, May 26, 2005

Cited laws & provisions

Section 23, P.D. No. 1529

Special Law

Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc

Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree, 1978)

The public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of the application for land registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting.

1. By publication.

2. By mailing.

3. By posting.

The court may also cause notice to be served to such other persons and in such manner as it may deem proper.

The notice of initial hearing shall, in form, be substantially as follows:

(Caption and Title)

NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING

To (here insert the names of all persons appearing to have an interest and the adjoining owners so far as known, and to all whom it may concern):

(Insert description)

Witness, the Hon. ________________________ Judge of the Court of First Instance of _______ this _______ day of _________________, in the year 19______.

Attest:

Commissioner of Land Registration

Why it is cited here

The holding this case is still good for, as distinct from the one it is famous for losing.

So the case must be cited with care: sound on Section 23, superseded on Section 14(1). A brief that cites it for the latter is citing overruled law.

Full entry below ↓

Section 19, P.D. No. 1529

Special Law

Amendments

Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree, 1978)

Amendments to the application including joinder, substitution, or discontinuance as to parties may be allowed by the court at any stage of the proceedings upon just and reasonable terms.

Why it is cited here

The problem with filing one application for two distinct parcels.

Which is the transferable rule: joinder of parcels is a matter of procedure; notice is a matter of jurisdiction. Combining applications never combines the notice requirements.

Full entry below ↓

Section 2, P.D. No. 1529

Special Law

Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts

Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree, 1978)

Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.

Why it is cited here

The reason a notice defect ends the case rather than delaying it.

Proceedings "shall be in rem" and courts have "exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration."

Full entry below ↓

Facts

On June 25, 1963 the CENRO of the DENR certified the subject lots alienable and disposable under Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1063.
On June 25, 1976 Jeremias and David Herbieto bought Lot No. 8422 and Lot No. 8423 in Cabangahan, Consolacion, Cebu, from their parents, spouses Gregorio Herbieto and Isabel Owatan.
On September 23, 1998 the brothers filed a single, joint application for registration and confirmation of title over the two separate parcels in the MTC of Consolacion, Cebu.
On December 11, 1998 the Republic, through the OSG, opposed: the required adverse possession was wanting, the muniments not genuine, and the lots part of the inalienable public domain.
On April 29, 1999 the court set the initial hearing for September 3, 1999. The notice was posted on the lots and at the municipal building on July 27, 1999 and published in the Official Gazette on August 2, 1999.
On September 3, 1999 the court held the hearing, entered special default against the whole world save the Republic, and commissioned the Clerk of Court to receive evidence ex parte.
On December 19, 1999 — more than three months after the hearing — the notice was finally published in The Freeman Banat News, a Cebu City daily.
On December 21, 1999 the MTC decreed registration, Lot No. 8422 to Jeremias and Lot No. 8423 to David, and on February 2, 2000 declared the judgment final and directed the LRA to issue the decree. On November 22, 2002 the CA affirmed in CA-G.R. CV No. 67625, holding the lots alienable since 1963 and possessed for thirty-five years. The Second Division decided on May 26, 2005.

Arguments of the Parties

Issue

ANCILLARY / INCIDENTAL ISSUES (if any). None separately resolved.

Ruling

Ratio

Notice is given three ways — publication, mailing and posting — and publication is itself twofold. The proviso settles what confers jurisdiction over the res; it was never meant to dispense with newspaper publication, which due process requires because the Gazette is not widely read and is often delayed.
Publication must precede the hearing to do its work. Its purpose is to constructively seize the land and let anyone with an adverse interest come forward; published afterwards, it reaches people already defaulted without notice.
A proceeding in rem demands strict and literal compliance. Because the decree binds the whole world, jurisdiction over the res arises only on full compliance — and lapses by the court or its personnel cannot supply a jurisdiction never acquired.
Misjoinder is a matter of arrangement, not of power. Severance cures it; dismissal is not the remedy.
Possession counts only from classification. Land not yet released as alienable is outside private appropriation, so time spent on it adds nothing toward the statutory period.

Doctrine

Doctrines / Rules / Principles Laid Down.

Though Gazette publication confers jurisdiction, publication once in a newspaper of general circulation is a mandatory, jurisdictional requirement of due process that must occur before the scheduled initial hearing; done later it is null, the court acquires no jurisdiction, and everything following is void ab initio.
Lapses by the court or the LRA in publishing on time excuse no one and confer no jurisdiction. And for Section 14(1), possession before the land was classified alienable and disposable is legally ineffective and cannot be counted.

Distinctions / Limitations / Qualifications.

Misjoinder of causes of action and parties is procedural, not jurisdictional, and warrants severance rather than dismissal. And the "private rights" exception to a reservation protects only a claimant who proves by clear and convincing evidence that a registrable title had already vested in him or his predecessors before the proclamation issued.

Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

DIRECT: the Court made newspaper publication absolute and non-waivable under Section 23 — compliance with every other requirement, Gazette publication included, cannot cure its absence before the hearing. Treating it as jurisdictional prevents the anomalous titling of public land and guarantees the world a real, timely and effective chance to oppose.

Separate Opinions

None. The Second Division decided unanimously through Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, with Justices Puno, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Tinga concurring.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Facts

On June 25, 1963: Community Environment and Natural Resources Office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources issued a certification finding that the subject lots were alienable and disposable by virtue of Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1063.
On June 25, 1976: The Herbieto brothers, namely Jeremias Herbieto and David Herbieto, purchased Lot No. 8422 and Lot No. 8423, situated in Cabangahan, Consolacion, Cebu, from the parents of the Herbieto brothers, the spouses Gregorio Herbieto and Isabel Owatan.
On September 23, 1998: The Herbieto brothers filed a single, joint application for original land registration and confirmation of title over the two separate parcels of land, Lot No. 8422 and Lot No. 8423, before the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu.
On December 11, 1998: The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a written Opposition to the application, asserting that the Herbieto brothers failed to comply with the adverse possession period required by law, that the muniments of title were not genuine, and that the subject lots were part of the inalienable public domain.
On April 29, 1999: The Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, issued an Order setting the initial hearing of the land registration case on September 3, 1999, at 8:30 a.m..
On July 27, 1999: A copy of the Notice of Initial Hearing was posted in a conspicuous place on the subject lots, and on the bulletin board of the municipal building of Consolacion, Cebu.
On August 2, 1999: The Notice of Initial Hearing was published in the Official Gazette.
On September 3, 1999: The Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, conducted the scheduled initial hearing, issued an Order of Special Default against the whole world with only the Republic of the Philippines opposing, and commissioned the Clerk of Court to receive the evidence of the Herbieto brothers ex parte.
On December 19, 1999: The Notice of Initial Hearing was published in the newspaper The Freeman Banat News, a daily newspaper printed in Cebu City and circulated in the province of Cebu—occurring more than three months after the initial hearing.
On December 21, 1999: The Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, promulgated a Judgment ordering the original registration and confirmation of title of Jeremias Herbieto over Lot No. 8422, and of David Herbieto over Lot No. 8423.
On February 2, 2000: The Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, issued an Order declaring the Judgment of December 21, 1999, final and executory, and directing the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority to issue a decree of registration.
On an unspecified date: The Republic of the Philippines appealed the Judgment of the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, to the Court of Appeals.
On November 22, 2002: The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 67625, affirming the Judgment of the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, on the ground that the subject lots had been alienable since 1963 and that the Herbieto brothers had possessed the subject properties for thirty-five years prior to the filing of the application.
On an unspecified date: The Republic of the Philippines elevated the case to the Supreme Court of the Philippines via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
On May 26, 2005: The Supreme Court of the Philippines Second Division promulgated the Decision granting the Petition for Review on Certiorari, setting aside the rulings of the MTC and CA, and dismissing the application for original registration.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner/Prosecution (Republic of the Philippines).

The Republic of the Philippines argues that the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, did not acquire jurisdiction over the land registration case because of a fatal procedural defect in the publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing.
The Republic of the Philippines contends that under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Notice of Initial Hearing must be published both in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation. Because the newspaper publication in The Freeman Banat News occurred more than three months after the date of the actual initial hearing, the statutory publication requirement was violated.
The Republic of the Philippines asserts that the joint application filed by the Herbieto brothers is procedurally defective because the application covers two separate parcels of land individually and separately owned by two different applicants, which is not authorized under Presidential Decree No. 1529 unless the applicants are co-owners.
The Republic of the Philippines maintains that the Herbieto brothers failed to prove the open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject lots since June 12, 1945, or earlier, as required under Section 14, paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, because the land was only declared alienable and disposable on June 25, 1963, and any possession prior to such declaration cannot be counted for registration purposes.

Respondent/Defense (Jeremias and David Herbieto).

The Herbieto brothers argue that the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, acquired valid jurisdiction over the land registration case because the Notice of Initial Hearing was duly published in the Official Gazette prior to the date of the initial hearing, satisfying the explicit proviso of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 that publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
The Herbieto brothers contend that the subsequent publication of the notice in The Freeman Banat News was a mere procedural detail, and the failure of the court or the Land Registration Authority to publish the notice on time should not prejudice the substantive property rights of the applicants.
The Herbieto brothers assert that the joint application covering separate lots is a harmless misjoinder of causes of action that does not affect the jurisdiction of the registration court and may be cured by severing the claims.
The Herbieto brothers maintain that the subject properties became private patrimonial lands through extraordinary acquisitive prescription of thirty years under Article 1137 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, as the land had been alienable and disposable since June 25, 1963, and was possessed by the Herbieto brothers in the concept of owner for thirty-five years prior to the filing of the application in 1998.

Issue

SECONDARY ISSUES.

Whether the procedural irregularity of filing a single application for original registration covering two distinct parcels of land separately owned by two different applicants is a fatal defect that deprives the land registration court of jurisdiction.
Whether the Herbieto brothers complied with the substantive requirements under the Public Land Act and Presidential Decree No. 1529 to register the subject lots, considering that the land was only classified as alienable and disposable on June 25, 1963.

Ruling

Dispositive portion (verbatim). The final dispositive portion of the Supreme Court of the Philippines in G.R. No. 156117, dated May 26, 2005, is quoted verbatim as follows:

WHEREFORE , based on the foregoing, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67625, dated 22 November 2002, is REVERSED. The Judgment of the MTC of Consolacion, Cebu in LRC Case No. N-75, dated 21 December 1999, and its Order, dated 02 February 2000 are declared NULL AND VOID. Respondents' application for registration is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED

Ratio

The Dual Publication Requirement under Section 23: Under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, notice of the initial hearing must be given by three distinct means: publication, mailing, and posting. The statutory provision mandates that publication must be made once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation. Although the proviso in Section 23 states that publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the land registration court, this proviso was never intended to dispense with the newspaper publication. The newspaper publication is an indispensable requirement of procedural due process because the Official Gazette is not widely read or circulated, and is frequently delayed in the circulation of the Official Gazette.
The Invalidity of Late Newspaper Publication: The primary purpose of publication under the Torrens system is to constructively seize the land and to notify the entire world of the land registration proceedings. This notification enables all persons who have any adverse interest in the property to come forward and show cause why the land registration application should not be granted. For this notification to be legally effective, the publication must occur prior to the date of the scheduled initial hearing. When the newspaper publication is made more than three months after the initial hearing, potential oppositors are deprived of a day in court and default orders are issued against such oppositors without notice. Therefore, late publication is legally equivalent to no publication and fails to vest the court with jurisdiction over the res.
The Jurisdictional Nature of Original Land Registration: Land registration under the Property Registration Decree is a proceeding in rem that binds the whole world. A court can only validly exercise jurisdiction over the res if there is strict and literal compliance with all the mandatory and jurisdictional requirements of the statute. Lapses on the part of the court or the personnel of the court in scheduling hearings or delay in publishing notices cannot excuse non-compliance with the law, nor can lapses vest the land registration court with a jurisdiction the court did not legally acquire.
The Regalian Doctrine and Land Classification: Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of whatever classification belong to the State unless a clear, positive, and prior grant is established. Public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land remain part of the inalienable public domain. Prior to the official reclassification of a public land as alienable and disposable on June 25, 1963, the land was unregistrable and could not be the object of private possession.
The Substantive Possession Period under PD 1073: Section 48, paragraph b of the Public Land Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073, strictly requires applicants to prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land since June 12, 1945, or earlier. This requirement is substantive, and the possession must be reckoned only from the date the land was officially declared alienable and disposable.

Doctrine

Doctrines / Rules / Principles Laid Down.

The Herbieto Rule on Mandated Newspaper Publication: While Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides that publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the land registration court, the separate requirement of publishing the notice of initial hearing once in a newspaper of general circulation is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement of procedural due process. The newspaper publication must occur prior to the date of the scheduled initial hearing; otherwise, the late publication is null and void, the court fails to acquire jurisdiction over the land, and all subsequent proceedings are completely void ab initio.
The Rule on Courting Lapses: Lapses on the part of the land registration court or the Land Registration Authority in delaying the publication of the notice of initial hearing cannot excuse a party from non-compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the law, nor can lapses vest the court with jurisdiction.
The Substantive Reckoning of Possession: For purposes of original registration under Section 14, paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, possession of public lands prior to the classification of the public lands as alienable and disposable is legally ineffective and cannot be counted toward the required period of possession under the law.

Distinctions / Limitations / Qualifications.

The Exception on Misjoinder of Causes: The misjoinder of causes of action and parties in a land registration application is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, and does not warrant the dismissal of the application. The proper remedy is to order the severance of the misjoined claims so that the claims can be heard and decided separately.
The Vested Private Rights Exception: The sovereign authority of the State to reserve public lands for military or public purposes under a presidential proclamation is subject to "private rights" already existing over the land. But to qualify as a private right exempt from the reservation, the applicant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that a registrable title had already vested in the applicant or the predecessors-in-interest of the applicant prior to the issuance of the proclamation.

Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification of Relationship: DIRECT.
Integration: The case of Republic v. Herbieto is a seminal and controlling precedent on Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 because the case establishes the absolute and non-waivable character of the newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing. The decision clarifies that even if the land registration court complies with all other notice requirements—such as publication in the Official Gazette, mailing, and posting—the failure to publish the notice in a newspaper of general circulation prior to the scheduled hearing violates procedural due process and divests the court of jurisdiction. By treating newspaper publication as a jurisdictional prerequisite, G.R. No. 156117 prevents the anomalous titling of public lands and safeguards the integrity of the Torrens system by ensuring that the whole world is afforded a real, timely, and effective opportunity to oppose original land registration applications.

Separate Opinions

NOT APPLICABLE / NOT IN RECORD. (The decision of the Second Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines was rendered unanimously, with Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario as the ponente, and with Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno, Alicia Austria-Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., and Dante O. Tinga concurring, without any separate concurring or dissenting opinions filed).