Republic vs. Herbieto

Publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation is mandatory for a land registration court to validly acquire jurisdiction, and the Public Land Act, as a special law, prevails over the Civil Code on acquisitive prescription regarding lands of the public domain, requiring possession since June 12, 1945, for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.

Respondents Jeremias and David Herbieto filed a single application for the registration of two parcels of land (Lots No. 8422 and 8423) located in Cabangahan, Consolacion, Cebu, claiming ownership by purchase from their parents in 1976. Their parents had allegedly possessed the lots in the concept of an owner since 1950. The lots were certified by the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) as alienable and disposable only as of June 25, 1963.

• The Application: Respondents Jeremias and David Herbieto filed a single application for the registration of two parcels of land—Lot No. 8422 in the name of Jeremias, and Lot No. 8423 in the name of David. They claimed to have purchased the lots from their parents, spouses Gregorio Herbieto and Isabel Owatan, on June 25, 1976. Respondent Jeremias testified that their parents had been in possession of the lots in the concept of an owner since 1950.
• The Opposition: The Republic opposed the application, arguing that respondents failed to comply with the period of adverse possession required by law, their muniments of title were insufficient, and the lots were part of the public domain not subject to private appropriation.
• The Publication Defect: The MTC set the initial hearing for September 3, 1999. While the notice was published in the Official Gazette on August 2, 1999, it was published in The Freeman Banat News, a newspaper of general circulation, only on December 19, 1999—more than three months after the initial hearing had already taken place. On the day of the hearing, the MTC issued an Order of Special Default against all potential oppositors.
• The Land Classification: CENRO certifications established that the Subject Lots were classified as alienable and disposable only on June 25, 1963, pursuant to Forestry Administrative Order No. 4-1063.

• Period of Possession: The Republic argued that respondents failed to establish open, continuous, and adverse possession since June 12, 1945, or earlier, as required by the Public Land Act, as amended. Possession prior to the classification of the land as alienable and disposable on June 25, 1963, cannot be counted.
• Misjoinder: The Republic contended that the filing of a single application by two individuals for separately owned parcels of land was a fatal procedural infirmity that deprived the MTC of jurisdiction, citing the mandatory procedures of the Property Registration Decree.

• Acquisitive Prescription: Respondents maintained, relying on the Court of Appeals' ruling, that they acquired title through extraordinary prescription under Article 1113 in relation to Article 1137 of the Civil Code, having possessed the lots—by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest—for 35 years since the land was declared alienable in 1963.
• Procedural Regularity: Respondents implicitly argued that the procedural requirements for land registration were satisfied, as the notice was published in the Official Gazette and the MTC validly acquired jurisdiction over the in rem proceeding.

• Jurisdiction - Misjoinder: Whether the filing of a single application by two individuals for the separate and individual registration of two parcels of land deprives the land registration court of jurisdiction.
• Jurisdiction - Publication: Whether a land registration court acquires jurisdiction when the notice of initial hearing is published in a newspaper of general circulation after the date of the initial hearing.
• Applicable Law for Prescription: Whether the 30-year extraordinary acquisitive prescription under the Civil Code may be applied to confirm title over alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, in lieu of the possession requirement under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.

• Jurisdiction - Misjoinder: Misjoinder of causes of action and parties does not affect the jurisdiction of the land registration court. Because the Property Registration Decree is silent on the situation of multiple applicants seeking separate registration in a single application, the Rules of Court apply suppletorily. Under the Rules of Court, misjoinder is not a ground for dismissal and implies an admission of the court's jurisdiction; the proper remedy is the severance of the misjoined causes of action or parties.
• Jurisdiction - Publication: The MTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over the in rem proceeding. Publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation is mandatory, notwithstanding Section 23(1) of the Property Registration Decree stating that publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Due process demands newspaper publication because the Official Gazette is not as widely read and is oftentimes delayed. Publication of the notice in a newspaper more than three months after the initial hearing is tantamount to no publication at all, depriving potential claimants of the opportunity to oppose the application and invalidating the MTC's constructive seizure of the land.
• Applicable Law for Prescription: The Civil Code provisions on acquisitive prescription cannot apply to alienable lands of the public domain. The Public Land Act specifically governs lands of the public domain and, being a special law, prevails over the Civil Code, a general law, pursuant to the principle generalia specialibus non derogant. Consequently, possession of the subject lots prior to their classification as alienable and disposable on June 25, 1963, is inconsequential. Because the lots were classified as alienable only in 1963, respondents could not have complied with the requirement of possession since June 12, 1945, under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.

• Generalia specialibus non derogant — General laws do not derogate from special laws. Between a general law (Civil Code on prescription) and a special law (Public Land Act on disposition of public lands), the special law prevails. The Public Land Act specifically governs lands of the public domain, and its specific requirements for judicial confirmation of imperfect title take precedence over the general provisions on acquisitive prescription in the Civil Code.
• Jurisdiction in rem in land registration — A land registration case is a proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction cannot be acquired unless there is constructive seizure of the land through strict compliance with the requirements of publication, mailing, and posting of the notice of initial hearing. Newspaper publication is mandatory for due process, given the reality that the Official Gazette is not as widely read and is often delayed.
• Misjoinder of causes of action and parties — Misjoinder does not affect the jurisdiction of the court and is not a ground for dismissal. It implies an admission of the court's jurisdiction, which may be exercised motu proprio or on motion to order the severance of misjoined causes of action or the dropping of misjoined parties.

• "The late publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in the newspaper of general circulation is tantamount to no publication at all, having the same ultimate result. Owing to such defect in the publication of the Notice, the MTC failed to constructively seize the Subject Lots and to acquire jurisdiction over respondents' application for registration thereof."
• "It is an established rule of statutory construction that between a general law and a special law, the special law prevails — Generalia specialibus non derogant."
• "Any period of possession prior to the date when the Subject Lots were classified as alienable and disposable is inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of the period of possession; such possession can never ripen into ownership and unless the land had been classified as alienable and disposable, the rules on confirmation of imperfect title shall not apply thereto."

• Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45168 (1981) — Followed on the mandatory nature of newspaper publication for land registration jurisdiction; distinguished on the effect of procedural defects on jurisdiction (the Court clarified that non-compliance with mandatory mode of obtaining jurisdiction voids proceedings, but misjoinder is not such a jurisdictional defect).
• Republic v. Doldol, G.R. No. 132963 (1998) — Followed on the requirement that possession of land of the public domain must be from June 12, 1945, or earlier, for judicial confirmation of imperfect title.
• Almeda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85322 (1991) — Followed on the rule that possession prior to the classification of land as alienable and disposable is inconsequential and cannot ripen into ownership.

• Section 48(b), Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act), as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1073 — Requires that those seeking judicial confirmation of imperfect title must have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Applied to deny respondents' claim, as they could not meet the required date of possession.
• Section 23(1), Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Requires publication of the notice of initial hearing once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation, providing that publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Interpreted alongside due process requirements to mean that newspaper publication is nonetheless mandatory for a valid in rem proceeding.
• Articles 1113 and 1137, Civil Code — Provide that property of the State not patrimonial in character cannot be the object of prescription, and that ownership over immovables may be acquired through 30 years of uninterrupted adverse possession without need of title or good faith. Held inapplicable to lands of the public domain, the Public Land Act being the applicable special law.

Puno, Acting C.J. (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ.