REPU

REPUBL
BLIC
IC OF TH THEE PHIL
PHILIP
IPPI
PINE
NES,
S, Peti
Petiti
tion
oner
er,, vs.
vs. JERE
JEREMI
MIAS
AS AND
AND DAVID
AVID
HERBIETO,Respondents. [G.R. No. 156117. May 26, 2005]

Facts:
This is a petition for review assailing the decision of the CA, affirming the decision of the
MTC granting the application for land registration of the respondents.
Respondents filed a single application for two parcel of lands located at Cabangahan,
Consolacion, Cebu. They claim to be the owner of said lots by virtue of its purchase from
respondents’ parents. They also submitted pertinent documents to prove their claim and with
emphasis on the Certifications by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO) of the DENR on its finding that the Subject Lots are alienable and disposable, by
virtue of Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1063, dated 25 June 19 63.
An initial hearing was set on Sept. 3, 1999 and notifications were posted in conspicuous
 places on the subject lots and on the municipal hall. The notice was also published in the official
gazette on Aug. 2 1999 and on the Freeman and Banat news on Dec. 19, 1999.
MTC render
rendereded a decisio
decision
n granti
granting
ng title
title to the respond
respondent
ents.
s. Petiti
Petitioner
oner assail
assailed
ed said
said
decision on the grounds of: 1.) Jurisdiction, since there was a procedural defect in the filing of a
single application for two parcels of land; 2.) Respondents failed to establish that they and their 
 predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, and adverse possession of the Subject
Lots in the concept of owners since 12 June 1945 or earlier.

Issue:
1.) Does the
the MTC have
have the jurisd
jurisdictio
iction?
n?
2.) Did the respondents had open, continuous, and adverse possession of the Subject Lots
in the concept of owners since 12 June 1945 or earlier.

Held:
1.) On Jurisdiction – the procedural defect or the misjoinder, wherein two or more distinct
or contradicting rights or demands are joined, does not remove the court’s jurisdiction.
HOWEVER, in the case at hand there was indeed a lack of jurisdiction not because of the
misjoi
misjoinder
nder but because
because of: a.) THE REQUIR
REQUIREME EMENTNT FOR PUBLIC
PUBLICATIATION,
ON, it is
mandatory that the publication be made in the official gazette and in a newspaper of 
general circulation before the initial hearing. As we can notice the publication on the
Freeman and the Banat News was only done 3 months after the hearing which renders
inutile the intention of the mandatory publication.
2.) Respondents failed to comply with the required period of possession of the Subject
Lots for the judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or incomplete title.
The said lots are public lands classified as alienable and disposable only on June 25, 1963
and the respondents were seeking for a confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title
through judicial legalization. Under Sec.48 of the Public Land Act, which is the ruling
law in this case, Respondents were not able to prove their continuous ownership of the
land since June 12, 1945 or earlier, because said lands were only classified as alienable
and disposable only on June 25, 1963.

Application for land registration was dismissed.

Ponteras, Godofredo III F. LLB 2 EH 302