Publication, Service and Modes of

Notice
Publication, Service and Posting of Notices

Notice of Initial Hearing. READ: Sec. 23, PD 1529

When & how initially set. Within 5 days: READ: Sec. 23, PD 1529

How given. Contents; Form of Notice; Manner of Service. READ: Sec. 23, supra

Modes of Service 

Publication 

Notice of initial hearing must be published once in the Official Gazette and once in a
newspaper of general circulation as a requirement of due process. READ: Section 24, PD
1529 & Heirs of Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118436, 21 March 21, 1997.

Heirs of Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118436, 21 March 21, 1997

FACTS: Private respondents filed an application for registration of subject land.

Publication was made in the Official Gazette and the Record Newsweekly. Since the
Original Petitioner wasn’t named as adjoining owner, a notice of the proceeding wasn’t
sent to her. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: WON Publication is properly made

RULING: Publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing was made in the Official Gazette
and in the Record Newsweekly, admittedly not a newspaper of general circulation. The
Court of Appeals held that pursuant to Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529,
publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Said provision of
law expressly states that "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. . . ." cralaw virtua1aw library
While publication of the notice in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction
upon the court, publication in a newspaper of general circulation remains an
indispensable procedural requirement. Couched in mandatory terms, it is a component
of procedural due process and aimed at giving "as wide publicity as possible" so that all
persons having an adverse-interest in the land subject of the registration proceedings
may be notified thereof. Although jurisdiction of the court is not affected, the fact that
publication was not made in a newspaper of general circulation is material and relevant
in assessing the applicant’s right or title to the land.

Purpose and Effects of Publication. RE-READ: Benin vs. Tuason, GR No. L-26127, 28 June
1974 and cited cases; 

Benin vs. Tuason, GR No. L-26127,

FACTS: The plaintiffs in three complaints alleged that the registered owners had
applied for the registration of subject property; that before the judgment was handed
down, amendments and alteration were made were never published; that he decision
over the said case was null and void as the LRC had no jurisdiction for lack of
publication

ISSUE: WON the Court of Land Registration did not acquire jurisdiction

RULING: No. If the amendment consists in the inclusion in the application for registration of an
area or parcel of land not previously included in the original application, as published, a new
publication of the amended application must be made. The purpose of the new publication is to give
notice to all persons concerned regarding the amended application. Without a new publication the
registration court can not acquire jurisdiction over the area or parcel of land that is added to the area
covered by the original application, and the decision of the registration court would be a nullity
insofar as the decision concerns the newly included land. The reason is because without a new
publication, the law is infringed with respect to the publicity that is required in registration
proceedings, and third parties who have not had the opportunity to present their claim might be
prejudiced in their rights because of failure of notice. But if the amendment consists in the exclusion
of a portion of the area covered by the original application and the original plan as previously
published, a new publication is not necessary.  In the latter case, the jurisdiction of the court over the
remaining area is not affected by the failure of a new publication.

It is thus shown that the amended plan in LRC No. 7681 did not cover parcels, or areas, that were
not previously included in the original plan which accompanied the application that had been
published in the Official Gazette. There was, therefore, no necessity for a new publication of the
amended plan in order to vest the Court of Land Registration with jurisdiction to hear and decide the
application for registration in LRC No. 7681 and to order the issuance of Decree of Registration No.
17431 upon which Original Certificate of Title No. 735 was based.

BUT: a land registration court cannot be divested of jurisdiction by a subsequent

administrative act of issuance of a homestead patent. READ: Delos Angeles vs. Santos,
G.R. No. L-19615      24 December 1964;

Delos Angeles vs. Santos, G.R. No. L-19615      24 December 1964

ISSUE: whether a land registration court which has validly acquired jurisdiction over a parcel of land
for registration of title thereto could be divested of said jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative
act consisting in the issuance by the Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering the same
parcel of land

RULING: To start with, it is well settled that the Director of Lands' jurisdiction, administrative
supervision and executive control extend only over lands of the public domain and not to lands
already of private ownership. Since the existence or non-existence of applicants' registrable title to
Lot 11 is decisive of the validity or nullity of the homestead patent issued as aforestated on said lot
the court a quo's jurisdiction in the land registration proceedings could not have been divested by the
homestead patent's issuance.

Proceedings for land registration are in rem whereas proceedings for acquisition of homestead
patent are not. A homestead patent, therefore, does not finally dispose of the public or private
character of the land as far as courts upon proceedings in rem are concerned. Applicants should
thus be given opportunity to prove registrable title to Lot 11.

Proviso that publication is “sufficient to confer jurisdiction” is not meant to dispense

with the requirement of notice by mailing and posting. READ: Republic vs. Marasigan,
G.R. No. 85515, 6 June 1991; 

Republic vs. Marasigan, G.R. No. 85515, 6 June 1991;

ISSUE: WON  the publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer
jurisdiction upon the court

RULING: Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 is entitled Notice of initial hearing, publication,
etc. and provides, inter alia, that: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The public shall be given notice of initial hearing of the application for land registration
by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting." cralaw virtua1aw library

As regards publication, it specifically provides: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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. . . ." cralaw virtua1aw library

This proviso was never meant to dispense with the requirement of notice by mailing
and by posting. What it simply means is that in so far as publication is concerned, there
is sufficient compliance if the notice is published in the Official Gazette, although the
law mandates that it be published "once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper
of general circulation in the Philippines." However, publication in the latter alone would
not suffice. This is to accord primacy to the official publication. chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

That such proviso was never meant to dispense with the other modes of giving notice,
which remain mandatory and jurisdictional, is obvious from Section 23 itself. If the
intention of the law were otherwise, said section would not have stressed in detail the
requirements of mailing of notices to all persons named in the petition who, per Section
15 of the Decree, include owners of adjoining properties, and occupants of the land.

The above view of the Court of Appeals negates one of the principal purposes of the
Decree, which is clearly expressed in its exordium, namely, to strengthen the Torrens
System through safeguards to prevent anomalous titling of real property. It opens wide
the doors to fraud and irregularities in land registration proceedings and in proceedings
for the reconstitution of certificates of title. Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that
only very few have access to or could read the Official Gazette, which comes out in few
copies only per issue. If publication in the Official Gazette of the notice of hearing in
both proceedings would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court, owners of
both unregistered and registered lands may someday painfully find out that others have
certificates of title to their land because scheming parties had caused their registration,
or secured reconstituted certificates of title thereto and sold the property to third
parties.

A defective publication deprives the court of jurisdiction. READ: Republic vs. CA and
PNB, G.R. No. 103746 9 February 1993;
Instances of defective publication:

(a) different description. READ: Sec. 15, PD 1529 & Fewkes vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. L-29075
June 10, 1971; 

(b)actual publication was 47 days after the hearing. READ:  RD of Malabon vs RTC
Malabon, G.R. No. 88623, 5 February 1990, 182 SCRA 788; 

the publication of the notice of initial hearing way after the date of the initial hearing is
worthless and ineffective. READ: Republic vs. Herbieto, G.R. No. 156117, 26 May 2005

  Is newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration case
mandatory or directory? READ: Director of Lands vs CA, GR No. 102858, 28 July 1997.

Mailing

Persons and officials to whom notice is given by mailing. READ: Sec. 23, PD 1529

Posting

READ: Sec. 23, PD 1529

How notice proven. READ: Sec. 24, PD 1529

Opposition

Requisites for opposing application. READ: Sec. 25, PD 1529

Who may file opposition. READ: Sec. 25, PD 1529

Oppositor need not be named in the notice of initial hearing. READ: Leyva vs. Jandoc, G.R. No.
L-16965, 28 February 1962, 4 SCRA 595.

Oppositor need not show title; but must appear to have an interest. READ:  De Castro vs.
Marcos, G.R. No. L-26093, 27 January 1969, 26 SCRA 644.

A mere foreshore lessee of a public land cannot be an oppositor. READ: Leyva vs. Jandoc, G.R.
No. L-16965, 28 February 1962, 4 SCRA 595.
The failure of the government to file an opposition, despite receipt of notice, does not deprive it of
its right to appeal a decision adjudicating the land as private property. READ: Regalado vs.
Republic, GR No. 168155, 17 February 2007.

Resolution/Disposition of buildings and improvements on the land subject of registration, if

there is no opposition. READ: Fernandez vs. Aboratigue,  GR L-25313, 28 December 1970,
36 SCRA 476.

Content/s of Opposition. READ: Sec. 25, PD 1529; Partial Opposition. READ: par. 2, Sec. 25,
PD 1529.

How & when made. READ: 25, PD 1529.

Sufficiency of unverified opposition. READ: Miller vs. Director of Lands. G.R. No. L-16761,
31 October 1964, 12 SCRA 292.

Affirmative Relief in Opposition. READ: Sec. 29, PD 1529

Judgment
Judgment

Partial judgment. READ: Sec. 28, PD 1529; READ: pp. 261-272, PRDRL, Agcaoili, 2018 Ed.

Judgment confirms title. READ: Sec. 29, PD 1529

Duty of land registration officials to render report may extend even after finality of judgment
but not beyond one (1) year from entry of decree. READ: Gomez vs. CA, G.R. No. 77770, 15
December 1988, 168 SCRA 503.

In whose name registration may be made; land may be “dealt with”. READ: Sec. 29, PD 1529;
Mendoza vs. CA, G.R. No. L-36637, 14 July 1978, 84 SCRA 76.

Only claimed property or portion can be adjudged. READ: Caragay-Layno vs. CA, G.R.
No. L-52064, 26 December 1984, 133 SCRA 718.
Where portions of a land subject of a land registration case are covered by titles based on
homestead, free or sales patent, the court cannot simply invalidate them; subject of separate
litigation. READ: Director of Lands vs. CA, G.R. No. L-56613, 14 March 1988, 181 SCRA
450.

Finality of Judgment. READ: Sec. 30, PD 1529

Now 15 days counted from receipt of the notice of judgment. READ: Sec. 39, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980).

Period to appeal

As to the government, period of appeal shall be reckoned from the receipt of the decision
by the Solicitor General who represents the government in all registration proceedings.
READ: Sec. 1(e) PD 478; Republic vs. Sayo, 191 SCRA 71

Execution pending appeal is not allowed. READ: Director of Lands vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-
27594, 28 November 1975, 68 SCRA 177

Control of case/Re-opening of proceedings

Court retains control of the case for 1 year, notwithstanding lapse of 15 days from receipt
of judgment. READ: Gomez vs. CA, G.R. No. 77770, 15 December   1988, 168 SCRA 503.

Hence, the case may still be reopened and the decision set aside when granted. READ:
Cayanan vs. De Los Santos, G.R. No. L-21150, 26  December, 1967, 21 SCRA 1348

Hearing
Hearing

Speedy hearing; reference to referee. READ: Sec. 27, PD 1529

Rules of procedure applicable. READ: Sec. 34, PD 1529

Order of trial. READ: Rule 30, Rules of Court

Burden of Proof falls on applicant. READ: Secretary of DENR vs. Yap, G.R. No. 167707, 8
October 2008.

What must be proven?

1. Citizenship Requirement. READ: Krivenko vs. RD, GR No. L-630, 15 November 1947.
Does the area limitation (5,000 square meters for urban land and 3 hectares for rural land)
under Section 10 of RA 7042 (Foreign Investments Act as amended by RA 8179) apply to a
natural born Filipino citizen who has lost his citizenship but who has acquired it under the
terms of RA No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003)?
2. Classification of public lands. READ: Article 425, Civil Code of the Philippines. RE-
READ: Section 2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution & Secs. 2, 6, 9 & 10, CA 141 (The Public Land
Act); What are the requirements to establish classification? READ: Republic vs Fabio, GR
No. 159581, 23 December 2008

Non-registrable properties. READ: pp. 206-234, PRDRL, Agcaoili, 2018 Ed.

*Boracay is unclassified land of the public domain; it is a public forest. Claimants are
not therefore entitled to apply for judicial confirmation of imperfect title under CA 141.
READ: DENR Secretary vs. Yap, GR No. 167707; 8 October 2008.

Quantum of evidence required – Competent, clear and persuasive. READ: Republic vs.
Sayo, 191 SCRA 71; Republic vs Lao, G.R. No. 150413, 1           July 2003.

Note: We will discuss more specific evidence of ownership in Module 5.

Default
Default

Order of Default. READ: Sec. 26, PD 1529

 Distinguish between General and Special Default.
 Effects of Default; READ: 26, PD 1529
 “entered against the whole world” hence all persons are bound by the order of
default. READ: Cachero vs. Marzan, G.R. No. L-53768, 6 May 1991, 196 SCRA 601.
 All allegations are deemed confessed. READ: Esconde vs. Barlongay, G.R. No. L-
67583, 31 July 1987, 152 SCRA 603.

Remedy of a defaulted interested person. READ: Sec. 3, Rule 18, Rules of Court

Improper defaults

 It is improper to declare a person in default simply because he failed to appear at

the pre-trial after filing an opposition. Remedy is the special civil action of certiorari
not an appeal. READ: Director of Lands vs. Santiago, G.R. No. L-41278, 15 April 1988,
160 SCRA 186.

Applicability of res judicata

 Motion to Dismiss grounded on res judicata is allowed in land registration cases.

Rules of Court apply in a suppletory character whenever applicable or convenient.
READ: Valisno vs. Plan, G.R. No. L-55152, 19 August 1986, 143 SCRA 502.

Decree of Registration
Decree of Registration

Issuance of the Decree of Registration. READ: Sec. 31, PD 1529. READ: pp. 272-278, PRDRL,
Agcaoili, 2018 Ed.

Issued pursuant to an order of the court upon finality of the judgment. PREPARATION &
ISSUANCE OF DECREE. READ: Sec. 39, PD 1529; READ: Sec. 39, PD 1529 in relation to
Sec. 31.
When and by whom issued. READ: Sec. 31, PD 1529; Heirs of Cristobal Marcos vs. De
Banuvar, G.R. No. L-22110, 28 September 1968, 25 SCRA 316.

Court may still issue order even beyond 15 days from entry of judgment. READ: Vda. De
Barroga vs. Albano, G.R. No. L-43445, 20 January 1988, 157 SCRA 131.

Finality & Incontrovertibility of Decree; Significance of the Decree. READ: par. 2, Sec. 31, PD
1529; Dela Merced vs. CA, G.R. No. L-17757, 30 May 196, 25 SCRA 240.

When considered final. READ: Sec. 32, PD 1529

When not considered final. READ: Director of Lands vs. Busuego, G.R. No. L-19090, 28
December 1964, 12 SCRA 678.

Review of Decree, when allowed. READ: Eland Philippines Inc. v. Garcia, GR No. 173289,
17 February 2010.

Effect of finality of Decree. READ: Bolanos vs. JM Tuason & Co., 37 Phil 223.

Enforcement of the Decree; Period for enforcement. READ: Heirs of C. Marcos vs. De Banuvar,

G.R. No. L-22110, 28 September 1968;  Sec. 6, Rule 39 not applicable to enforcement of
decree. READ: Realty Sales vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-67451, 28 September 1987.

Note: In the following cases, pay particular attention to the argument/s of the parties
and the ruling/s of the Supreme Court. What important doctrine was involved in each
of the 4 cases?  Eventually, which date was considered by the Supreme Court as the
date of the decree of registration? Finally, why did the Supreme Court consider OCT
No.  994 dated 19 April 1917 and all its derivative titles void? 

READ: (1) Manotok vs. Barque, G.R. No. 162335 & 162605,   December 12, 2005;
(2) Manotok vs. Barque Realty, G.R. No. 162335 & 162605,  18 December 2008;The
Piedad Estate is patrimonial property of the government, hence State property without
prejudice to reversion proceedings. READ: (3) Manotok vs. Barque, GR No. 162335 &
162605, 24 August 2010; (4) Manotok vs. Barque, GR No. 162335 & 162605, 6 March
2012.