FEWKES v.

VASQUEZ,
39 SCRA 514 (1971)
FACTS:
March 2, 1967 - Eldred Fewkews, an American citizen, commenced in the Court
of First Instance of Albay a proceeding for the registration of 2 lots and the
improvements thereon, Fewkes acquired by purchase from Velasco 2 parcels Of
land Applicant was in actual possession of the lots, and that said properties were
free from any encumbrance. Attached to the application were: The tracing cloth
and blue print of plans Psu-61470 and the corresponding technical descriptions of
Lots 21-Aand 21-B of Psu-61470 The certified copies of the tax declarations on
said land The two deeds of absolute sale dated 20 June 1966 and27 January 1967,
executed by the Velascos in favor of applicant March 31, 1967 - The court required
the applicant to submit the plans and technical description of the parcels of land
sought to be registered and the surveyor's certificate Applicant filed a motion
praying the court that the Director of Lands and/or the Land Registration
Commission be directed to approve subdivision plan Psu61470, wherein it
appeared that the lots sought to be registered are parts of a bigger lot identified in
said subdivision plan as Lot No. 21 Court denied the motion in that the application
being a registration of land, had nothing to do with the approval of the subdivision
plan .The court issued another order, this time for amendment of the application in
order to include the respective postal addresses of the adjoining owners named
therein February 23, 1968 - The court issued an order dismissing the application
for warrant of jurisdiction, based on the finding that the properties sought to be
registered only formed part of a bigger tract, of land and that the notice of initial
hearing did not delineate accurately the portions of the land involved In the
registration proceeding.
Hence this appeal, Fewkes contends that since the published description includes
the motions being registered, then the court below erred itself without jurisdiction
over the proceeding No need for further publication to vest jurisdiction Petitioner’s
argument: the publication of the bigger tract of land, jurisdiction over the said
property.
HELD:
Under Section 21 of the Land Registration Act an application for registration of
land is required to contain: A description of the land subject of the proceeding The
name, status and address of the applicant, as well as the names and addresses of all
occupants of the land and of all adjoining owners, if known, or if unknown, of the
steps taken to locate them When the application is set by the court for initial
hearing, it is then that notice (of the hearing),addressed to all persons appearing to
have an interest in the lot being registered and the adjoining owners, and indicating
the location, boundaries and technical description of the land being registered, shall
be published in the Official Gazette for two consecutive times. An essential basis
for jurisdiction It is only when there is constructive seizure o the land, effected by
the publication and notice,that jurisdiction over the rest is vested on the court It is
the technical description of these 2 smaller lots, therefore, that must be published
in order that the persons who may be affected by their registration may be notified
there of Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED