Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. JEREMIAS HERBIETO,Respondents. [G.R. No. 156117.

May 26, 2005] Facts:

AND

DAVID

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 1963. 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 rendered a decision granting title to the respondents. Petitioner assailed 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 MTC have the jurisdiction? 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 courts jurisdiction. HOWEVER, in the case at hand there was indeed a lack of jurisdiction not because of the misjoinder but because of: a.) THE REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICATION, 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