The Director of Lands vs CA
The Director of Lands, petitioner,
Vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and TEODORO ABISTADO, substituted by MARGARITA, MARISSA, MARIBEL, ARNOLD, and MARY ANN, all surnamed ABISTADO, respondents.
Doctrine: Statutory Construction; The word “shall” denotes an imperative and thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute; If mailing of notices is essential, then by parity of reasoning, publication in a newspaper of general circulation is likewise imperative where the law includes such requirement in its detailed provision. Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 276, G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997.
Facts
Teodoro Abistado, a private respondent, filed a petition for original registration of his title over 648 square meters of land under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529 on December 8, 1986. The said petition was docketed as Land Registration Case (LRC) No. 86 and assigned to Branch 44 of the Regional Trial Court of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. However, Teodoro Abistado died while the petition is still pending. As a result, the application was continuously pursued by his heirs, Margarita, Marissa, Maribel, Arnold, and Mary Ann Abistado, represented their aunt Josefa Abistado who serves as their guardian ad litem.
On June 13, 1989, their petition for “want of jurisdiction” was dismissed for as a rule, “However, the Court noted that applicants failed to comply with the provisions of Section 23 (1) of PD 1529, requiring the Applicants to publish the notice of Initial Hearing (Exh. ‘E’) in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. Exhibit ‘E’ was only published in the Official Gazette (Exhibits ‘F’ and ‘G’). Consequently, the Court is of the well-considered view that it has not legally acquired jurisdiction over the instant application for want of compliance with the mandatory provision requiring publication of the notice of the initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.”
With this dismissal, the private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals and the motion for reconsideration was denied in the challenge of the Court of Appeals Resolution on November 19, 1991.
Issue
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed “Grave abuse of discretion” for the dismissal of the petition.
Ruling
In reversing the decision of the trial court, Respondent Court of Appeals ruled: “x x x although the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation is couched in mandatory terms, it cannot be gainsaid that the law also mandates with equal force that publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court.” In fact, it is also stated in the presidential decree no. 1529, Sec. 23, that notice of initial hearing, publication, etc.—The court shall, within five days from the filing of the application, issue an order setting the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than forty-five days nor later than ninety days from the date of the order.
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. Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 276, G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997
The Director of Lands vs. CA | Read Full Text
Director of Lands vs CA : 102858 : July 28, 1997 : J. Panganiban : Third Division (chanrobles.com)
