Director of Lands vs Court of Appeals

G. R. No. 102858, 28 July 1997, 276 SCRA 276

FACTS
:1.

On 8 December 1986, private respondent Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for originalregistration of his
title over 648 sq.m. of land under PD 1529 however during the pendency ofthe petition, Teodoro died
hence his heirs were substituted as applicants, represented by theiraunt, who was appointed as their
guardian ad litem.2.

The Land registration court dismissed its petition for want of jurisdiction stating that theapplicants failed
to comply with the provisions of Section 23 (1) of PD 1529 requiring theApplicants to publish the notice
of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in thePhilippines and was only published in the
Official Gazette and thus the court has not legallyacquired jurisdiction over the instant petition for want
of compliance with the mandatoryprovision requiring publication of the notice of initial hearing in a
newspaper of generalcirculation.3.

The case was appealed by the private respondents in the CA, which set aside the decision ofthe trial
court and ordered the registration of the title in the name of Teodoro Abistado. Themotion for
reconsideration was denied, thus this petition.
ISSUE
: Whether or not publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration caseis
MANDATORY or DIRECTORY in relation to Section 23(1) of PD 1529.
HELD
: The Supreme Court held that provision of the law is MANDATORY. The law used the term
SHALL and denotes an IMPERATIVE and thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute,
itsimportance ultimately depends upon its context in the entire provision, and the Court holds that
thepresent case must be understood in its normal mandatory meaning.Land registration is a proceeding
in rem and as such is validated essentially in publication this beingso the process must be strictly
complied with, in that the one who is instituting the action must beable to prove his title against
the whole world. Hence, before the claimed property is taken fromconcerned parties and registered in
the name of the applicant, said parties must be given notice andopportunity to oppose, the reason of
which is DUE PROCESS.In the present case, there was failure to comply with the explicit publication
requirement of the law.The Court has declared that where the law speaks in clear and categorical
language, there is no roomfor interpretation; there is only room for application and there is no
alternative. Thus, the case wasdismissed without prejudice to reapplication after all the legal requisites
shall have been duly complied with.