G.R. No.

L - 29075 June 10, 1971

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TITLE,

ELDRED FEWKES VS VASQUEZ

FACTS:
Eldred Fewkews, an American citizen, commenced in the Court of First Instance
of Albay a proceeding for the registration of 2 lots and the improvements thereon.
It was alleged in the application that Fewkes acquired by purchase such lands; that
applicant was in actual possession of the lots, and that said properties were free
from any encumbrance.
The court issued an order dismissing the application for warrant of jurisdiction,
based on the finding that the properties sought to be registered only formed part of
a bigger tract, of land which was described in the plan attached to the application,
and that the notice of initial hearing did not delineate accurately the portions of the
land involved in the registration proceeding.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the jurisdiction over the subject property was acquired by
publication of the bigger land.

HELD:

No.It must be remembered that the application in this case filed in the court below
was for registration, not of the big parcel of land but of certain portions thereof
designated by applicant-appellant as Lots Nos. 21-A and 21-B. It is the technical
description of these 2 smaller lots, therefore, that must be published in order that
the persons who may be affected by their registration may be notified thereof.
For, considering that the adjoining owners of Lot No. 21 would not be the same as
the owners of the properties adjoining Lots Nos. 21-A and 21-B, the notification of
the adjoining owners of the big lot would not be the notice to the adjoining owners
or occupants of the smolder lots required by law. In short, it is the publication of
the specific boundaries of Lots Nos. 21-A and 21-B that would actually put the
interested parties on notice of the registration proceeding, and would confer
authority on the land registration court to pass upon the issue of the registrability of
said lots in favor of the applicant
Republic v. Marasigan, GR 85515, June 6, 1991, 198 SCRA 219

FACTS

On 4 November 1986 private respondent, claiming to be one of the heirs of

Epifania
 Alcano, registered owner of a parcel of land located in Canubing, Calapan,
Oriental Mindoro, containing an area of 33,294 square meters, and covered
by Transfer 
Certificate of Title No. T-66062 in the Registry of Deeds of Calapan,
Oriental Mindoro, filed a petition for the reconstitution of "the original
and duplicate copy" of the said
Transfer Certificate of Title on the basis of the owner’s duplicate copy.
She alleged therein that she is in possession "of the title subject matter
of’ the petition but she, however, did not allege the reason why she asked
for the reconstitution.

In its Order of 4 November 1986 the trial court set the petition for hearing
and required its publication in the Official Gazette, which was done.
Required notices, except to the adjoining owners and the actual occupants of
the land, were given.

ISSUE

Whether or not notice by mailing and by posting is dispensed with by

Sec. 23?

RULING

No. Notice by mailing and by posting is not dispensed with by Sec. 23.
Section
etc. and provides, inter alia, that: "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."  As regards publication, it specifically
provides: "Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial
hearing, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a notice 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…”

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 circulation in the Philippines."
However, publication in the latter alone would not suffice. This is to accord
primacy to the official publication.
 
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
G.R. No. L-12981             November 6, 1918

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, petitioner-

appellant,
vs.
THE BARRIOS OF SANTO CRISTO, CONCEPCION and SAN JOSE,
BALIUAG; SEGUNDO RODRIGO and AMBROSIO CRUZ, objectors and
appellees. SILVESTRE BALAGTAS, DOMINGO N. CRUZ, and VICENTE
N. SANTOS, objectors-appellants.
DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS JUAN AGUSTIN

Facts:

Director of Lands filed a petition for land registration in CFI Pampanga. Amado
L. Santos presented a claim lots Nos. 122 and 123, alleging that said lots belonged
to him, and prayed that the same be registered in his name. Ladislao Dayrit
opposed Santos, alleging that he was the owner of lot No. 124 and that there
existed an easement upon said lots Nos. 122 and 123, and requested that said
easement be noted upon whatever title might be issued to Amado L. Santos for said
lots Nos. 122 and
123.

According to CFI Santos had not adduced proof sufficient to show that he was the
owner in fee simple of said lots Nos. 122 and 123, but granted to him 60 days to
present additional proof. In other words, while CFI found that the evidence was
insufficient to justify a registration of said lots Nos. 122 and 123 under the
Cadastral system, it did find that the evidence showed that there existed in favor of
lot No. 124 an easement of the right to take water through a canal across said lots
Nos. 122 and 123. Instead of presenting additional proof, Santos immediately filed
an appeal to the SC.

Issue:

WoN Santos was able to prove he was the owner in fee simple of the lots

Held:
No. The evidence adduced during trial is not sufficient to sustain his contention. In
his argument in support of that assignment of error, he cites no proof nor any part
of the record in support of his
contention. The petitioner is not necessarily entitled to have the land registered
under the Torrens system, simply
because no one appears to oppose his title and to oppose the registration of his
land. He must show,even though there is no opposition, to the satisfaction of the
court, that he is the absolute owner, in fee simple. Courts are not justified in
registering property under the Torrens system, simply because there is no
opposition offered. Courts may, even in the absence of any opposition, deny the
registration of the land under the Torrens system, upon the ground that the facts
presented did not show that the petitioner is the owner, in fee simple, of the land
which he is attempting to have registered.
CFI Judgment affirmed.