Director of Land vs.

Benitez, 16 SCRA 557

In a previous cadastral proceedings, respondents were declared owners of lot 245
7 in Tacloban Leyte 14.5k sq/m. After 26yrs, the respondents under the same cada
stral court and under Republic Act 931 claims that through oversight, inadverten
ce and excusable neglect a portion of said Lot No. 2157 containing an area of 1,
805 sq. m. has not been included in the original survey. the court a quo issued
an order admitting the petition, ordered that copies of the original as well as
of the amended petition be furnished the Solicitor General, the Provincial Fisca
l of Leyte, the City Fiscal of Tacloban City, and the Register of Deeds of the p
rovince, setting
the case for hearing on October 18, 1958. The court then declared the petitioner
s the owners of the said misplaced lot. The spouses then moved for a write of ex
ecution and possession, but the 62 people who were already occupying the said ad
ditional lot opposed saying that they were granted the land by Dir of Lands. Sub
sequently, the Dir of lands made a motion to set aside the same judgment on the
ground, among others, that said decision was a nullity for the reason that the c
ourt a quo did not acquire jurisdiction to act on the petition of Emilio Benitez
and his wife for the reopening of the cadastral proceedings for lack of the req
uisite publication and notice as required by law. This was denied, and hence thi
s petition.
Issue: is the re-opening of the cadstral proceedings legal?
a) due to lack of publication
b) there were already legal existing claimants at that time.
Held: There is no question that respondents Emilio Benitez and his wife may file
a petition for reopening of the Cadastral pursuant to Republic Act No. 931 with
a view of claiming such portion of land which they may have failed to include i
n their original petition for survey and registration as authorized by the Cadas
tral Act provided that the petition be filed within the period prescribed by sai
d Republic Act No. 931. HOWEVER
a) An order of a court in a cadastral case amending the official plan so as to m
ake it include land not previously included therein is a nullity unless new publ
ication is made as a preliminary to such step. Publication is one of the essenti
al bases of the jurisdiction of the court in land registration and cadastral cas
es, and additional territory cannot be included by amendment of the plan without
new publication
b) Republic Act No. 931 makes insofar as the right of a claimant to have an addi
tional portion of land registered in his name is concerned in the sense that it
can only be entertained if it does not refer "to such parcels of land as have no
t been alienated, reserved, leased, granted, or authorized provisionally or perm
anently disposed of by the Government." Here it appears that the additional port
ion of land claimed by respondents is actually occupied by persons who claim to
be entitled to it by virtue of lease applications or permits granted to them by
the Bureau of Lands