REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JEREMIAS AND DAVID HERBIETO, RESPONDENTS.

Republic versus Herbieto

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Republic of the Philippines against the brothers Jeremias and David Herbieto, who filed a single application for registration of two parcels of land in Consolacion, Cebu. The Republic opposed the application, and when the courts below granted it, the Republic elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. The case matters for two reasons: it teaches that a misjoinder of parties and causes of action in a land registration application does not divest the court of jurisdiction, but that a defective publication of the notice of initial hearing does; and it restates the rule that possession of public land before its classification as alienable and disposable cannot be counted toward the period required for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.

Procedural History

The Herbieto brothers filed their application for registration with the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu. The Republic filed an opposition. After the initial hearing, the trial court issued an order of special default and later rendered judgment ordering the registration and confirmation of title in favor of each brother over his respective lot. The trial court then issued an order declaring its judgment final and executory and directing the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority to issue a decree of registration.

The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court, holding that the lots had been alienable and disposable since June 1963 and that the brothers and their predecessors had possessed them openly, continuously, exclusively, and adversely since 1950, or at least for thirty-five years counted from 1963, thus acquiring title by extraordinary prescription. The Republic then filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals decision.

Facts

On 23 September 1998, the brothers Jeremias and David Herbieto filed a single application with the Municipal Trial Court of Consolacion, Cebu, for registration of two parcels of land, identified as Lot No. 8422 and Lot No. 8423, located in Cabangahan, Consolacion, Cebu. They claimed to own the lots in fee simple, having purchased them from their parents, the spouses Gregorio Herbieto and Isabel Owatan, on 25 June 1976 for one thousand pesos, with Lot No. 8422 sold to Jeremias and Lot No. 8423 sold to David. They submitted advance survey plans, technical descriptions, certifications from the Register of Deeds that no certificates of title covered the lots, tax declarations issued in 1994, and a certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources stating that the lots were alienable and disposable by virtue of Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1063, dated 25 June 1963.

The Republic opposed the application, arguing that the brothers had not complied with the required period of adverse possession, that their muniments of title were not genuine, and that the lots formed part of the public domain. The trial court set the initial hearing for 03 September 1999. Notice was posted on the lots and on the municipal bulletin board on 27 July 1999, and published in the Official Gazette on 02 August 1999. However, publication in The Freeman Banat News, a newspaper of general circulation in Cebu, came only on 19 December 1999, more than three months after the initial hearing had already been held.

At the initial hearing, with only the Republic opposing, the trial court issued an order of special default and received the brothers' evidence through the Clerk of Court. On 21 December 1999, it ordered registration of the lots in the names of Jeremias and David respectively, and in February 2000 declared its judgment final and directed the issuance of a decree of registration. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Republic came to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the misjoinder of parties and causes of action in the filing of a single application for two parcels of land separately owned by two applicants deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over the application.
• Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the application despite the publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation occurring after the date of the initial hearing.
• Whether or not the respondents complied with the period of possession required for judicial confirmation of imperfect title over the lots.

Applicable Provisions

Section 23 of the Property Registration Decree, on the publication of the notice of initial hearing, provides:

1. By publication. Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a 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.

This provision fixes the manner by which a land registration court constructively seizes the land and acquires jurisdiction, and the Court reads it to require publication in a newspaper of general circulation as indispensable.

Section 48 of the Public Land Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073, on judicial confirmation of imperfect title, provides:

Section 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title thereafter, under the Land Registration Act, to wit: (a) [Repealed by Presidential Decree No. 1073]. (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the applications for confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. (c) Members of the national cultural minorities who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture whether disposable or not, under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 shall be entitled to the rights granted in subsection (b) hereof.

This provision supplies the period of possession the respondents had to satisfy, and the Court holds that possession before the land became alienable and disposable cannot be counted.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the misjoinder did not affect jurisdiction. The Property Registration Decree allows a single application by several applicants who are co-owners, and a single application covering several parcels within the same province, but is silent on two applicants filing one application for two parcels they seek to register separately. Section 34 of the Decree makes the Rules of Court applicable in a suppletory character, and under those Rules a misjoinder of causes of action and parties does not involve jurisdiction and is not even a ground for dismissal. The trial court could have ordered severance on its own initiative or on motion, and the Republic's failure to raise the matter below did not make the proceedings void on that ground.

On the second issue, however, the Court held that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction. A land registration case is a proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction in rem requires constructive seizure of the land through publication and notice. Although Section 23 provides that publication in the Official Gazette suffices to confer jurisdiction, the Court affirmed that publication in a newspaper of general circulation is likewise mandatory, because the Official Gazette is not as widely read and is often delayed. Here the notice appeared in The Freeman Banat News only on 19 December 1999, more than three months after the initial hearing of 03 September 1999. The Court held that late publication is tantamount to no publication at all, and that anyone with a claim was deprived of due process, being already barred by the default order. The trial court's judgment and its order declaring it final were therefore null and void.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondents failed to comply with the required period of possession. Their application did not state its statutory basis, but since it was filed in court it could only be for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, which requires possession since 12 June 1945 or earlier. The lots became alienable and disposable only on 25 June 1963, and any possession before that date is inconsequential and excluded from the computation, since such possession can never ripen into ownership. The Court also rejected the Court of Appeals' reliance on extraordinary prescription under the Civil Code, because the confirmation of title was erroneously premised on the Property Registration Decree rather than on the Public Land Act.

Doctrine

First, a misjoinder of parties and causes of action in a land registration application does not divest the court of jurisdiction; it is a procedural defect that may be corrected by severance, and it is not a ground for dismissal.

Second, jurisdiction in a land registration case, being a proceeding in rem, is acquired only through constructive seizure of the land by publication and notice; publication in a newspaper of general circulation is mandatory, and publication after the date of the initial hearing is tantamount to no publication at all, rendering the proceedings void.

Third, under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, the applicant must show open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of alienable and disposable public land since 12 June 1945 or earlier; possession before the land is classified as alienable and disposable is excluded from the computation and can never ripen into ownership.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals decision, and set aside the trial court's judgment and order for having been issued without jurisdiction, the respondents having failed to comply with the publication and possession requirements.

Remember This

Memorize this line: late publication is tantamount to no publication at all, and possession of public land before its classification as alienable and disposable does not count. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory publication requirements in land registration and the reckoning of the possession period under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.