G.R. No. L-40309. August 31, 1983
METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. HON. NICANOR S. SISON, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH XXII, SITTING AT PASIG, RIZA…
ESCOLIN, J.:
Petition for review on certiorari to set
aside the order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
now Regional Trial Court, in Land Registration Case
No. 6563, dated April 6, 1970, directing “the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City, upon payment of the prescribed fees, to
reconstitute Transfer Certificates of Titles [N.A.] covering Lot Nos. 946, 947
and 948, of Tala Estate Caloocan
City”; and the order dated September 4, 1974 declaring “Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. [N.A.] 5[R], [N.A.] 6[R] and [N.A.] 7[R] as well as
all the titles subsequently issued therefrom as valid
and binding in accordance with the provisions of Rep. Act 26.”
Said orders are assailed
on the grounds that the proceeding a quo was conducted in violation of the strict and
mandatory requirements of Rep. Act No. 26 as to publication and notice of a
judicial petition for reconstitution of lost certificates of title, and that
the Torrens titles covering the said lands, issued in the names of petitioner
way back in 1931 and 1933, are existing and in full force and effect.
The basic facts are not
disputed. On February 4, 1970, the Heirs of Don Mariano de San Pedro, Domingo Cecilio and the Urban Agro Products Inc., private
respondents herein, filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal
a verified petition for reconstitution of the transfer certificates
of title covering Lot Nos. 946, 947 and 948 of the Tala
Estate, Caloocan
City, which were allegedly lost
during the last World War. The material averments of the petition are that
private respondents are the owners of said three (3) parcels of land, their
title thereto being evidenced by “transfer certificates of title Nos.
[N.A.], the original copies thereof in the office of the Register of Deeds as
well as the owner’s duplicates in their possession were lost or destroyed
during the last World War; that all efforts to recover them had been
unavailing; that at the time of their loss or destruction, said titles were in
full force and effect; that no co-owner’s, mortgagee’s or lessee’s copies
thereof had been issued; that there is no existing lien or encumbrance
affecting the properties involved; that petitioners are in actual, public, continuous
and uninterrupted possession of said lands, and all improvements existing thereon are owned by them; and that no deed or instrument affecting
said properties has been registered or pending registration in the office of
the Register of Deeds. Petitioners prayed that the transfer certificates of
titles covering the said lands be reconstituted in their names on the basis of
the plans and technical descriptions attached to the petition.
On February 5, 1970, the
trial court, then presided by Judge Benjamin H. Aquino, issued an order setting the hearing of the petition on March 7, 1970 at 8:30 A.M., and ordering all interested
persons to appear and show cause, if any, why the petition should not be
granted. Likewise, Judge Aquino directed the publication
of the order in the Manila Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Manila and the Province of Rizal once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks and that
copies of the order be posted by
the deputy sheriff in the municipal building of Caloocan
City and the Provincial Capitol building, Pasig, Rizal, at the expense of private respondents, petitioners
therein.
The petition and notice
of hearing were published in the Manila Daily Bulletin issues of February 8, 15
and 22, 1970, while copies thereof were posted by the deputy sheriff in
bulletin boards of the municipal building of Caloocan
City and the Provincial Capitol building at Pasig, Rizal, and served by registered mail to the Director of
Lands and the Office of the Solicitor General.
At the hearing on March 7,
1970, Atty. Daniel
C. Florida, special counsel in the office of the Solicitor General, appeared
for the Director of Lands. He was given 10 days within which to file an
opposition to the petition. It appears, however, that because of the written
manifestation subsequently filed by Atty. Florida to the effect that the Director of Lands had
no opposition to the petition, the trial court, on motion of petitioners
therein, issued an order authorizing the deputy clerk or the legal researcher
of the court to receive their evidence.
On April 6,
1970, the trial
court issued the order granting the petition for reconstitution, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City, upon payment of the prescribed fees, to
reconstitute Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. [N.A.] covering Lot Nos. 946,
947 and 948, Tala Estate, Caloocan City,
using as basis thereof the technical descriptions and plan duly verified and
approved by the Commissioner of Land Registration.”[1]
Pursuant to said order,
the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City issued on March 31, 1971 Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. [N.A.] 5[R], [N.A.] 6[R] and
[N.A.] 7[R] covering Lot Nos. 946, 947 and 948, respectively, all in the name
of “Don Mariano de San Pedro, Filipino, of legal age and widower.”
Two years thereafter, or
on July 17, 1973,
the Isabela Cultural Corporation, (formerly known as
the Mission de la Compania de Jesus en Filipinas), hereinafter referred to as Isabela, filed a motion to set aside the order of April 6,
1970. It mainly
alleged that the order was null and void on ground of lack of jurisdiction of
the court to entertain the petition because the order of February 5, 1970
setting the petition for hearing was published in the Manila Daily Bulletin
and not in the Official Gazette, as prescribed under Section 13 of Rep. Act No.
26; that said order was likewise a patent nullity for having been issued without
actual and personal notice upon Isabela, the actual
possessor and registered owner of Lots Nos. 946, 947 and 948, as evidenced by
the following transfer certificates of title, to wit:
“(1) Lot No. 946 of the Tala
Estate which is embraced in and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
19084 issued on March 19, 1931 in the name of Mision
de la Compania de Jesus en Filipinas (now Isabela Cultural Corporation) by the office of the Register
of Deeds of Rizal Province (now Register of Deeds of Caloocan City), containing an area of 249,550 sq. m. This
Lot No. 946 which is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 19084 was
subdivided, at the instance of Mision de la Compania de Jesus en Filipinas, into Lots Nos. 946-A and
946-B for which Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 45431 and 45432, respectively,
were issued in the name of Mision de la Compania de Jesus en Filipinas, on February 12, 1973 by the
Register of Deeds of Caloocan City;
“(2) Lot No. 947-New-C of the Tala
Estate containing an area of 137,619 sq. m. and Lot No. 947-New-D of the Tala Estate containing an area of 73,673 sq. m.
Both lots are embraced in and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
23893 issued on July 25, 1933 in the name of Mision
de la Compania de Jesus en Filipinas (now Isabela Cultural Corporation) by the Office of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal (now Register of Deeds of Caloocan
City); and
“(3) Lot No. 948-New-B of the Tala
Estate which is embraced and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23895
issued on July 25, 1933 in the name of Mision de la Compania de Jesus en Filipinas (now Isabela
Cultural Corporation) by the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal (now Office of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City), containing
an area of 40,747 sq. m.”
Hence, Isabela prayed that the order of April 6, 1970 be set aside
and declared void and that the reconstituted titles issued in the name of Don Mariano de
San Pedro as well as all other certificates of titles derived thererom be likewise declared void and of no effect.
On September
4, 1973, petitioner
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, MWSS for short, a government
corporation organized under Rep. Act No. 6234, filed an Omnibus Motion, praying
for leave to intervene and for admission of its motion to set aside the order
of April 6, 1970. MWSS
claimed that for failure to publish the notice of hearing in the Official
Gazette, as required by Section 13 of Rep. Act No. 26, the trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction to hear the petition for reconstitution, much less to is
sue the order of reconstitution; and that granting arguendo
that the court did acquire jurisdiction
over the petition, the reconstituted titles cannot prevail over the
existing titles of MWSS, to wit: TCT No. 23892 and TCT No. 23894 issued in
1933, covering Lot Nos. 1161, 947-A, 947-B and Lot Nos. 1192 and 948-A,
respectively, which are transfer from TCT Nos. 19085 and 19086 in the name of Mision de la Compania de Jesus en
Filipinas, which in turn were derived from original certificate of title No.
543 issued in July 23, 1913, pursuant to
Decree No. 4974 in G.L.R.O. Rec. No.
6563, originally covering Lot Nos. 946, 947 and 948 of the Tala Estate; that
the Novaliches Watershed Reservation and Reservoir
operated by MWSS, is
located in portions of the said parcels of land; and that its inability to file
the appropriate opposition to the petition was due to respondents’ failure to
serve the corresponding notice of hearing.
Private respondents
opposed the above motions of Isabela and MWSS,
advancing, in support thereof, that,
while Rep. Act No. 26 provides that publication of the notice of hearing be
made in the Official Gazette, the publication thereof in the Manila Daily
Bulletin is authorized by Section 1 of Rep. Act 4569 and, therefore,
constitutes substantial compliance with the law. Private respondents further
alleged that the disputed order could no longer be disturbed as the same had become
final and unappealable.
Acting on these motions,
the trial court, this time presided by respondent Judge Nicanor
Sison, issued the order of March 27, 1974, holding
that the publication of the notice of hearing in the Manila Daily Bulletin did
not comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 13 of Rep. Act 26 and,
therefore, did not vest the trial court with jurisdiction to pass upon the
petition for reconstitution. Accordingly, Judge Sison
set aside the order of April 6, 1970 and declared cancelled and of no further
force and effect reconstituted Transfer Certificates of Titles Nos. [N.A.] 5[R], [N.A.] 6[R] and [N.A.] 7[R] issued in the name of Don
Mariano de San Pedro.
Private respondents moved
for reconsideration of the order, but the same was denied. On August
19, 1974, they filed
a notice of appeal and appeal bond.
On May 15, 1974, the
other private respondents, namely: Eastcoast
Development Enterprises, Inc., Constancio B. Maglana and Francisco Artigo
filed a motion to intervene and
to set aside the order of March 27, 1974. They claimed to have legal interest
in the subject matter of the proceedings for being innocent purchasers for
value and holders of transfer certificates of title derived from the
reconstituted titles.
After submission of the
opposition, reply and rejoinder, respondent Judge Sison
issued the questioned order of September 4, 1975, reversing his previous order of March
27, 1974, as
follows:
“WHEREFORE, finding the motion for intervention, etc., dated
May 13, 1974, and the reply of June 20, 1974 by Eastcoast
Development Enterprises, Inc., and Francisco G. Artigo,
who are innocent purchasers for value with interest over the subject lands, to
be well-taken, the same are granted and said movants,
represented by Attys. Constancio B. Maglana and Francisco G. Artigo,
are granted leave to intervene in this case, and the Court hereby reconsiders
and sets aside its order dated March 27, 1974, and declares the reconstituted
titles as well as all the titles
subsequently issued therefrom to be valid and binding
in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act. No. 26.
This has to be so because the order of this Court dated April 6, 1970 is valid and binding and the same
has long become final and executory and complied
with.”[2]
He ruled that since the
petition for reconstitution is a proceeding in rem,
the publication of the notice of hearing, whether made in the Official Gazette
or in a newspaper of general circulation, was sufficient compliance with the
provisions of Section 13 of Rep. Act No. 26, in relation to Rep. Act 4569.
MWSS filed a motion for reconsideration of the
above order; and upon denial thereof, it went to this Court on certiorari
and prohibition.
We find the petition
impressed with merit.
There is no dispute that
the notice of hearing of the petition filed before the respondent court was
never published in the Official Gazette, as required by Section 13 of Rep. Act
26, which reads:
“SEC. 13. The court shall cause a
notice of the petition, filed under the preceding section, to be published, at
the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official
Gazette, and to be 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. The court shall
likewise cause a copy of the notice to be sent, by registered mail or otherwise,
at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein whose address
is known, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. Said notice shall
state, among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed certificate 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 or objection to the petition. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication, posting and
service of the notice as directed by the court.”
The publication of the
petition in two successive issues
of the Official Gazette, the
service of the notice of hearing to the adjoining owners and actual occupants
of the land, as well as the posting of the notices in the main entrances of the
provincial and municipal buildings where the property lies at least 30 days
prior to the date of the hearing, as prescribed by Section 13 of the law, are
mandatory and jurisdictional requisites.[3] In Syjuco vs.
PNB,[4] this Court ruled that “if an order of
reconstitution is issued without any previous publication, as required by law,
particularly Section 13 of Rep. Act 26, such order of reconstitution is null
and void and of no effect and, naturally, anything done under said order, is
also void.”
It is argued, however,
that in as much as the Manila Daily Bulletin, where the notice of hearing was
in fact published, had a wider circulation than the Official Gazette, such
publication in said newspaper substantially complied with the requirement of
the law, and that, moreover, publication in a newspaper of a general
circulation, other than the Official Gazette, is authorized under Section 1 of
Rep. Act 4569.[5]
We cannot sustain private
respondents’ view. Rep. Act 4269 applies only to judicial notices which the law
requires to be published in a newspaper of general circulation. Section 13 of
Rep. Act 26 specifies that publication of the notice of hearing in proceedings
for judicial reconstitution of lost certificates of title should be made in the
Official Gazette. It does not provide for any alternative medium or manner of
publication.
A proceeding for judicial
reconstitution of lost certificate of title partakes of the nature of a land
registration and cadastral proceeding, where publication of the notice of initial
hearing in the Official Gazette is required.[6] As heretofore stated, the publication in the
manner provided for by Section 13 of Rep. Act 26 is compulsory and jurisdictional;
and unless said law is amended, the same must be strictly complied with.
Private respondent
further maintains that the order of September 4, 1974, having become final and executory
for failure of petitioners to appeal, can no longer be disturbed. As already
pointed out, the orders of September 6, 1970 and of September 4, 1974 are void orders. In contemplation of law,
they are non-existent. As aptly put in American Jurisprudence, “a void
judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid judgment, but may
be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which
effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences
of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy for any
purpose or at any place. It cannot affect, impair or create rights. It is not
entitled to enforcement and is, ordinarily, no protection to those who seek to
enforce. All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded
as invalid. In other words, a void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the
situation is the same as it would be if there were no
judgment. It, accordingly, leaves the parties litigants in the same
position they were in before the trial.”[7]
The certificates of title
issued in the names of petitioners in 1931 and 1934 by the Register of Deeds of
Rizal are as follows:
“TCT. No. 19084[8],
now TCT No. 45431[9]
and TCT No. 45432[10]
covering Lot Nos. 946-New-A & 946-New-B, TCT No. 23893[11]
and TCT No. 23895[12]
covering Lot Nos. 946, 947-New-C and 947-New-D, and 948-New-B, respectively,
all in the name of petitioner Isabela Cultural
Corporation.
“TCT No. 23892[13]
and TCT No. 23893[14]
covering Lot Nos. 947-New-A, and 948-New-A, respectively, all in the name of
petitioner Metropolitan Water District.”
Considering that
petitioners are holders of subsisting certificates of title which have not been
cancelled either by judicial or administrative process, the questioned orders
authorizing the issuance of reconstituted titles over the same lands must be
struck down. Needless to state, the anomalous situation where two persons hold
separate titles over the same lands cannot be countenanced. Relevant indeed to
the case before Us is the following comment of Mr.
Justice Teehankee in the case of Alabang
Development Corp. vs. Hon. Valenzuela:[15]
“The first lesson to be drawn here is that courts must exercise
the greatest caution in entertaining such petitions for reconstitution
of allegedly lost certificates of title, particularly where the petitions are
filed, as in this case, after an inexplicable delay of 25 years after the
alleged loss. Furthermore, the courts must likewise make sure that indispensable
parties, i.e., the actual owners and possessors of the lands
involved, are duly served with actual and personal notice of the petition (not
by mere general publication), particularly where the lands involved constitute prime
developed commercial land … The stability and indefeasibility of the
Torrens System would have been greatly imperiled had the appellate court’s judgment
granting reconstitution prevailed,
resulting in two holders of Torrens certificates over the same lands. We can
take judicial notice of innumerable litigations and controversies that have
been spawned by the reckless and hasty grant of such reconstitution of alleged
lost or destroyed titles as well as the numerous purchasers who have been
victimized only to find that the ‘lands’ purchased by them were covered by
forged or fake titles or their areas simply ‘expanded’ through ‘table surveys’
with the cooperation of unscrupulous officials.
“The Court stresses once
more that lands already covered by duly issued existing Torrens
titles cannot be the subject of petitions for reconstitution of
allegedly lost or destroyed titles filed by third parties without
first securing by final judgment the cancellation of such existing titles. The courts
simply have no jurisdiction
over petitions by such third parties for reconstitution of
allegedly lost or destroyed titles over lands that are already covered by
duly issued subsisting titles in the names of their duly registered owners.
The very concept of stability and indefeasibility of titles
covered under the Torrens System registration rules out as anathema the
issuance of two certificates of title over the same land to two different
holders thereof. A fortiori, such proceedings for
‘reconstitution’ without actual notice to the duly registered owners and
holders of Torrens Titles to the
land are null and void. Applicants, land officials and judges who disregard
these basis and fundamental principles will be held duly accountable therefor.”
WHEREFORE, the questioned orders of April 6,
1970 and September
4, 1974 are hereby
annulled and set aside and reconstituted Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
[N.A.] 5[R], [N.A.] 6[R], and [N.A.] 7[R] issued pursuant to said orders, as
well as all titles derived therefrom are hereby cancelled and declared null and
void ab initio
and without force and effect. Costs against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., see
concurrence.
Abad Santos, J., on leave.
De Castro, J., on sick leave.
[1]
pp. 79-81; Annex C, Petition.
[2]
pp. 511-512, ibid.
[3]
Tahanan Development Corp. vs.
Court of Appeals, 118 SCRA 273; Director of Lands vs. Court of
Appeals, 102 SCRA 381.
[4]
86 SCRA 320.
[5]
“Section 1. — All judicial notices, advertisements
for public biddings, notices of auction sales and other similar notices or
announcements required by law to be published in newspaper of general
circulation in particular provinces and/or cities shall be published in
newspaper or publications published, edited and printed in the same city and/or
province where the requirements of general circulation applies; PROVIDED, that in the event there are
no newspaper published in the locality, the same may be published in the
newspaper and edited in the nearest city or province: PROVIDED FURTHER, that no newspaper which has not been regularly
published for at least five years before the date of publication of the notices
or announcements which may be assigned to it shall be qualified to publish said
notices.”
[6]
Sections 31 & 32 of Act 496 and Sections 7 and 8 of Act
2259 [Cadastral Act].
[7]
31 Am. Jur.,
91-92.
[8]
p. 1000, Vol. III, Rollo.
[9]
p. 1009, Vol. III,
Rollo.
[10]
p. 1010, Vol. III,
Rollo.
[11]
p. 1005, Vol. III, Rollo.
[12]
p. 1007, Vol. III, Rollo.
[13]
p. 1051, Vol. III, Rollo.
[14]
p. 1053, Vol. III, Rollo.
[15]
116 SCRA 261.