DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. V BENITEZ, ET AL.
1 of
Judicial Mode of Land Registration—Cadastral Proceeding (before
judgment)—Publication | March 31, 1966 | Bautista Angelo, J.
Nature of Case: Original Action in the SC. Petition for Certiorari.
Digest Maker: Micah Taguibao :)
SUMMARY: Spouses Benitez were declared owners of parcel of land in
Tacloban. Twenty-six years later, they asked to amend the original plan to
include an additional 1,805 sq. m. of land and filed a petition for reopening
the cadastral proceedings. The cadastral court admitted the petition, set it for
hearing and ordered that the Solicitor General, Provincial Fiscal, City Fiscal
and the Register of Deeds of the province be furnished copies of the original.
Eventually, the cadastral court declared the spouses as the owners of the
additional portion. Oppositors who occupied the land assailed the validity
of the decision as well as the SolGen, representing the Director of Lands, on
the ground that the court did not acquire jurisdiction for the reopening of
the cadastral proceedings for lack of the requisite publication and notice as
required by law. SC granted the petition and ruled that Section 1 of the
Cadastral Act must be followed. An order in a cadastral case amending the
official plan to include land not previously included is a nullity unless new
publication is made as a preliminary step.
DOCTRINE: 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. Notice
must be given to adverse parties and the general public by publishing such
notice in two successive issues of the Official Gazette and posting them in a
conspicuous place on the new land to be surveyed, and in the municipal
building of the city or municipality in which the same is situated.
FACTS:
 On December 29, 1932, the decision on the cadastral proceedings
undertaken by the Director of Lands before the CFI Leyte, declared
Emilio Benitez and Eulalia Brillo the owners of a 14, 548 sq. m. parcel
of land in Tacloban (Lot No. 2157, OCT No. 175057).
 On June 19, 1958 (26 years after) Benitez and Brillo filed a petition for
reopening of the cadastral proceedings under RA 931
o They claimed that through oversight, inadvertence and
excusable neglect, 1,805 sq. m. of Lot No. 2157 has not been
included in the original survey.
o They prayed that such portion be designated as Lot No.
the proposed subdivision plan and that, after notice and
hearing, be adjudicated to them pursuant to RA 931.
 The cadastral court admitted the petition and set the same for hearing.
It likewise ordered furnishing the Solicitor General, Provincial Fiscal,
City Fiscal and the Register of Deeds of the province copies of the
original.
 After hearing, on April 14, 1920, the court declared Benitez and his
wife the owners of the additional portion (with an area of 3,745 sq.
m.). However, when the spouses moved for the execution of the
judgment:
(1) Around 62 occupants of the said portion opposed and disputed
the validity of the decision.
(2) The Solicitor General, on behalf of the Director of Lands, filed a
motion to set aside the same judgment on the ground that the
court did not acquire jurisdiction to act on the petition of Benitez
and his wife for the reopening of the cadastral proceedings for
lack of the requisite publication and notice as required by law.
 Both the opposition and the motion to set aside were denied by the
court. MR denied.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
Issue #1: WON the cadastral court did not acquire jurisdiction for lack of the
requisite publication and notice—YES, additional territory cannot be included
by amendment of the plan without new publication
Ratio:
 First, the Court noted that Benitez and his wife may file a petition for
reopening of the cadastral case.
o RA 931 grants a person this right when: (1) claiming title to a parcel
of land that has been the subject of a cadastral proceeding, and who
(2) at the time of the survey was in actual possession thereof is (3)
unable to file a claim in the proper court during the time limit for
some justifiable reason.
o The right to claim such land may be exercised within 10 years by
filing the necessary petition for reopening under the Cadastral Act.
 HOWEVER, the petition for reopening should be filed in the same cadastral
proceedings where the original lands were surveyed and done pursuant
the procedure in Section 1 of the Cadastral Act:
(1) Notice must be given to those persons who claim an adverse
interest in the land sought to be registered,
 (2) Notice must be given to the general public, by publishing such
notice in two successive issues of the Official Gazette
(3) Notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the new land to
be surveyed, as well as in the municipal building of the city or
municipality in which the same is situated
 The Court, citing Phil. Mftg. Company v Imperial, held 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 as a preliminary 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
o Also, in Juan and Chuangco v Ortiz, the Court held that an order
in a land registration proceeding amending an official plan to
include additional land is a nullity as against a person who is not
a party and who has no notice of the proceeding, unless
publication is effected anew
 In addition, in RA 931, registration of an additional portion can only be
entertained if it does not refer “to such parcels of land as have not been
alienated, reserved, leased, granted, or authorized provisionally or
permanently disposed of by the Government.”
 In this case, the additional portion claimed is actually occupied by persons
who claim to be entitled to it by virtue of lease applications or permits
granted to them by the Bureau of Lands. These adverse claim require an
appropriate action with due notice to claimants and the Director of Lands.
Such cannot be done in the cadastral proceedings of the cadastral court’s
limited jurisdiction.

Ruling/Dispositive: Wherefore, petition is hereby granted. The decision

rendered by respondent court on April 14, 1962, as well as its orders issued to
implement said decision, are hereby declared null and void and without effect.
No costs.

NOTES from commentary/class discussion: