Director of Lands vs. Benitez

A cadastral court does not acquire jurisdiction to reopen cadastral proceedings and adjudicate an additional portion of land not included in the original survey unless new publication and notice are made as required by Section 1 of the Cadastral Act; an order amending the official plan to include such additional territory without new publication is a nullity. Republic Act No. 931 did not authorize the adjudication of the additional portion because it was occupied by persons holding lease applications or permits from the Bureau of Lands.

Emilio Benitez and Eulalia Brillo were the registered owners of Lot No. 2157 in Tacloban City, while the Director of Lands and occupants holding lease applications or revocable permits from the Bureau of Lands asserted interests in an additional portion of land in the same area. Republic Act No. 931 permits a claimant who was in actual possession at the time of the cadastral survey but failed to file a claim for a justifiable reason to seek reopening within ten years, subject to the Cadastral Act’s procedure and notice requirements. The Cadastral Act requires publication and posting of notice to adverse claimants and the general public before a court may act on land not previously included in the cadastral survey.

In the cadastral proceedings undertaken by the Director of Lands before the CFI of Leyte from May 1925 to April 1928, Emilio Benitez and Eulalia Brillo were declared owners of Lot No. 2157, a parcel in Tacloban City bounded on the northeast by a road and containing an area of 14,548 square meters. Original Certificate of Title No. 17507 of the Register of Deeds of Leyte was issued to them, and the decision of adjudication was rendered on December 29, 1932.

On June 19, 1958, or 26 years after the adjudication, the spouses filed a petition before the same cadastral court for reopening under Republic Act No. 931, claiming that through oversight, inadvertence, and excusable neglect a portion of Lot No. 2157 containing an area of 1,805 square meters had not been included in the original survey. They prayed that the portion be designated as Lot No. 1 of the proposed subdivision plan and, after notice and hearing, be adjudicated to them pursuant to Republic Act No. 931.

On July 12, 1958, the cadastral court issued an order admitting the petition, as amended, and setting it for hearing. In a subsequent order issued on September 3, 1958, it ordered that copies of the original and amended petition be furnished the Solicitor General, the Provincial Fiscal of Leyte, the City Fiscal of Tacloban City, and the Register of Deeds of the province, and set the case for hearing on October 18, 1958. When that date came, the court, after hearing the parties, issued an order granting the spouses the right to claim the portion allegedly not included in their original title and authorized a licensed surveyor to survey the portion claimed and submit a report to the Director of Lands for approval.

The surveyor submitted his report on July 20, 1960, and on April 14, 1962 the cadastral court rendered judgment declaring Emilio Benitez and his wife owners of the additional portion, which was this time declared to contain an area of 3,745 square meters. The report stated that Lot No. 1 was an integral part of the property of Attorney Emilio Benitez that was not included in the cadastral survey of Tacloban but was now occupied by squatters who claimed they had applied under lease applications and some under revocable permits, paying the Bureau of Lands for many years; the survey was not finished because it would result in not less than twenty lots whose occupants and claimants held permits to occupy their respective areas issued by the Bureau of Lands and had paid rentals to the government for many years, and the squatters had introduced improvements consisting of buildings covering the total area shown as Lot No. 1.

The decision having become final, the spouses moved on June 7, 1962 for a writ of execution and of possession of the additional portion. About 62 occupants of the portion, who held permits granted by the Director of Lands, registered their opposition disputing the validity of the April 14, 1962 decision. On July 25, 1962, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Director of Lands, filed a motion to set aside the judgment on the ground, among others, that it was a nullity because the cadastral court did not acquire jurisdiction to act on the reopening petition for lack of the requisite publication and notice required by law. The cadastral court denied the opposition and the motion to set aside in an order entered on August 6, 1962, and it also denied the separate motions for reconsideration filed by the Solicitor General and counsel for the 62 oppositors. The Provincial Fiscal of Leyte then filed the present petition for certiorari on behalf of the Director of Lands and the 62 adverse claimants.

• Lack of Jurisdiction — Publication and Notice: Petitioners argued that the April 14, 1962 decision was a nullity because the cadastral court did not acquire jurisdiction over the reopening petition for lack of the requisite publication and notice required by law.

• Jurisdiction — Publication and Notice: Whether the cadastral court acquired jurisdiction to reopen the cadastral proceedings and adjudicate the additional portion to respondents without new publication and notice as required by Section 1 of the Cadastral Act.
• Scope of Republic Act No. 931 — Occupied Public Land: Whether the additional portion could be adjudicated under Republic Act No. 931 when it was occupied by persons holding lease applications or permits from the Bureau of Lands.
• Jurisdiction of the Cadastral Court over Adverse Claimants: Whether the cadastral court could resolve the adverse claims of the occupants and the Director of Lands in the reopening proceeding.

• Jurisdiction — Publication and Notice: No. The cadastral court did not acquire jurisdiction over the additional portion because no new publication and notice were made as required by Section 1 of the Cadastral Act; an order amending the cadastral plan to include land not previously included is a nullity without new publication.
• Scope of Republic Act No. 931 — Occupied Public Land: No. Republic Act No. 931 did not authorize the adjudication of the additional portion because it was occupied by persons holding lease applications or permits from the Bureau of Lands.
• Jurisdiction of the Cadastral Court over Adverse Claimants: No. The cadastral court had limited jurisdiction and could not resolve the adverse claims of the occupants and the Director of Lands; those claims had to be threshed out in an appropriate action with due notice to them.

• Jurisdiction — Publication and Notice: Republic Act No. 931 allows a claimant to file a petition for reopening in the same cadastral proceedings, but the procedure laid down in the Cadastral Act must be followed. Section 1 of the Cadastral Act requires notice to persons claiming adverse interest and the general public by publication in two successive issues of the Official Gazette, posting in a conspicuous place on the new land to be surveyed, and posting in the municipal building of the city or municipality where the land is situated. The SC cited Philippines Manufacturing Company vs. Imperial and Escueta vs. Director of Lands for the rule that an order in a cadastral case amending the official plan to include land not previously included is a nullity unless new publication is made, because publication is one of the essential bases of jurisdiction in land registration and cadastral cases and additional territory cannot be included by amendment of the plan without new publication. The spouses’ petition sought to include an additional portion not in the original survey, but no new publication and notice were made; the cadastral court therefore acted without jurisdiction, and its April 14, 1962 decision and implementing orders were void.
• Scope of Republic Act No. 931 — Occupied Public Land: Republic Act No. 931 contains a reservation on the right of a claimant to have an additional portion of land registered in his name. The SC applied that reservation to the additional portion because the surveyor’s report showed that Lot No. 1 was occupied by squatters who claimed lease applications and revocable permits and had paid the Bureau of Lands for many years; the survey could not be finished because it would result in not less than twenty lots whose occupants and claimants held permits from the Bureau of Lands and had paid rentals, and the occupants had introduced buildings covering the area. Because the additional portion was occupied under such permits and lease applications, it could not be adjudicated to the spouses in the reopening proceeding.
• Jurisdiction of the Cadastral Court over Adverse Claimants: The surveyor’s report disclosed adverse claimants occupying the additional portion under permits from the Bureau of Lands. The SC held that because of these adverse claimants, the matter had to be threshed out in an appropriate action with due notice to the claimants and to the Director of Lands, from whom their title was said to have emanated under the Public Land Act. Such matter could not be looked into in the cadastral proceeding because of the limited jurisdiction of the cadastral court. The cadastral court therefore could not resolve the adverse claims and adjudicate the land to the spouses in that proceeding.

• Publication as a jurisdictional requirement in cadastral cases — In cadastral and land registration proceedings, publication is an essential basis of the court’s jurisdiction; an order amending the official plan to include land not previously included is a nullity unless new publication is made. The SC applied this rule because the spouses sought to include an additional portion not in the original survey without new publication and notice.
• Reopening under Republic Act No. 931 — A claimant who was in actual possession at the time of the cadastral survey but failed to file a claim for a justifiable reason may seek reopening within ten years under the Cadastral Act, subject to the statute’s reservation and the required publication and notice. The SC held that the spouses’ reopening could not stand because no new publication and notice were made and the additional portion was occupied under Bureau of Lands permits.
• Limited jurisdiction of the cadastral court over adverse claims — The cadastral court cannot resolve adverse claims of occupants holding Bureau of Lands permits and the Director of Lands in a reopening proceeding; those claims must be threshed out in an appropriate action with due notice to the claimants and the Director of Lands. The SC applied this because the surveyor’s report showed not less than twenty lots occupied by permittees.

• "An order of a court in a cadastral case amending the official plan so as to make it include land not previously included therein is a nullity unless new publication is made as a preliminary to such step. Publication is one of the essential bases of the jurisdiction of the court in land registration and cadastral cases, and additional territory cannot be included by amendment of the plan without new publication" — The SC used this rule to void the cadastral court’s adjudication of the additional portion without new publication.
• "Because of these adverse claimants there is need that the matter be threshed out in an appropriate action with due notice to said claimants and to the Director of Lands from whom their title thereto is said to have emanated under the Public Land Act. Such matter, certainly, cannot be looked into in the present proceeding because of the limited jurisdiction of the cadastral court." — The SC used this to hold that the cadastral court could not resolve the adverse claims of the occupants and the Director of Lands.
• "Lot 1, is an integral part of the property of Attorney Emilio Benitez which was not included in the cadastral survey of Tacloban, but now occupied by squatters, who claimed that they have applied under lease applications and some under Revocable Permits which they have been paying for many years to the Bureau of Lands." — The surveyor’s report supplied the factual basis for the SC’s conclusion that the additional portion was occupied under Bureau of Lands permits and could not be adjudicated in the reopening.

• Philippines Manufacturing Company vs. Imperial, 49 Phil. 122 — Controlling precedent cited for the rule that an order amending a cadastral plan to include land not previously included is a nullity unless new publication is made.
• Escueta vs. Director of Lands, 16 Phil. 482 — Supporting precedent cited for the same publication requirement in cadastral and land registration proceedings.

• Section 1, Cadastral Act (Act No. 2259) — Requires notice to persons claiming adverse interest and the general public by publication in two successive issues of the Official Gazette and by posting in a conspicuous place on the new land and in the municipal building; the SC applied it to hold that the cadastral court lacked jurisdiction over the additional portion without new publication and notice.
• Republic Act No. 931 — Grants a claimant in actual possession at the time of the survey but unable to file a claim for a justifiable reason the right to claim the land within ten years by petition for reopening under the Cadastral Act; the SC held that the right is subject to the statute’s reservation and did not authorize adjudication of the additional portion occupied under Bureau of Lands permits.
• Public Land Act — Referred to as the source of the occupants’ claims through the Director of Lands; the SC held that those claims had to be resolved in an appropriate action with due notice to the claimants and the Director of Lands, not in the cadastral reopening.