Statement of the Case:

 this is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals granting the petitions of Sps.
Roberto and Marina Sanchez (the Respondents) to set aside the ruling of the RTC in a suit for
reconstitution of title. The petitioner here is the Land Registration Authority.

Statement of the Facts:

 The respondents (Sps. Sanchez) filed a petition in the RTC for the reconstitution of title no. 252708
which they claimed was issued in the name of Marina Sanchez. They claimed that the title was
destroyed by the fire which razed the Office of the Register of Deeds, Quezon City.
 The reconstitution is being sought under Sec. 3 of RA No. 26 AN ACT PROVIDING A SPECIAL
PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF TORRENS CERTIFICATES OF TITLE LOST OR
DESTROYED.
 In support of their petition for reconstitution, the petitioner (Land Registration Authority) issued
its first report endorsing for consideration the resolution of the petition.
 The RTC thus caused the notice of hearing be published in the in the Official Gazette and posted
at the main entrance of the City Hall and the Hall of Justice.
 Since there was no opposition filed against the petition, it underwent the necessary proceedings,
and RTC issued its order granting the reconstitution and ordered TCT No. 252708.
 However, after one year from the date of its order, the RTC received another report which stated
that the first report submitted by the spouses was fake and that the title sought to be reconstituted
was found to be questionable since there are two other titles covering the same lot covered by the
claimed TCT No. 252708.
 Petitioner LRA filed a motion to set aside the order of the RTC. It pointed out that under Section
13 of RA 26, the notice of a petition for reconstitution of lost or destroyed titles should not only be
published and posted but also served on, among others, the owners of the adjoining properties.
For non-compliance with this requirement, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction.
 Respondents opposed the petition, primarily on the ground that the 28 October 1996 Order had
become final.
 The RTC set aside its initial recommendation.
 Herein respondents appealed to CA. CA granted their appeal. According to the CA, the trial court
already acquired jurisdiction over the case. The reconstituted title should be recognized until it is
declared void by a court in a proper proceeding.
 Thus, this current petition.

Issue: W/n the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling:
The petition was granted, the SC ruled that the actual notice requirement in Section 13, in relation to Section
12 of RA 26 is necessary to acquire jurisdiction. Compliance with the actual notice of requirement is
mandatory and jurisdictional.