8/10/2019 Director of Lands Vs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/director-of-lands-vs 1/2

  Director of Lands vs. CA [G.R. No. 102858. July

28, 1997]

15

AUG

Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J.

FACTS:

Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original

registration of his title over 648 square meters of land

under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529. The land

registration court in its decision dated June 13, 1989

dismissed the petition “for want of jurisdiction”, in

compliance with the mandatory provision requiring

publication of the notice of initial hearing in a

newspaper of general circulation. The case was

elevated to respondent Court of Appeals which, set

aside the decision of the trial court and ordered the

registration of the title in the name of TeodoroAbistado. The Court of Appeals ruled that it was

merely procedural and that the failure to cause such

publication did not deprive the trial court of its

authority to grant the application. The Director of

Lands represented by the Solicitor General thus

elevated this recourse to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Director of Lands is correct that

newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearingin an original land registration case is mandatory.

HELD:

YES. Petition was granted.

RATIO:

The pertinent part of Section 23 of Presidential

Decree No. 1529 requires publication of the notice of

initial hearing. It should be noted further that landregistration is a proceeding in rem. Being in rem, such

proceeding requires constructive seizure of the land

as against all persons, including the state, who have

rights to or interests in the property. An in rem

proceeding is validated essentially through

publication. This being so, the process must strictly

be complied with.

The Supreme Court has no authority to dispense with

such mandatory requirement. The law is

unambiguous and its rationale clear. Time and again,this Court has declared that where the law speaks in

clear and categorical language, there is no room for

interpretation, vacillation or equivocation; there is

room only for application. There is no alternative.

Thus, the application for land registration filed by

private respondents must be dismissed without

prejudice to reapplication in the future, after all the

legal requisites shall have been duly complied with.

Pascual vs. pascual-Bautista

OLIVIA S. PASCUAL and HERMES S. PASCUAL,petitioners, vs.ESPERANZA C. PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, MANUEL C.PASCUAL, JOSE C. PASCUAL, SUSANA C. PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, ERLINDA C. PASCUAL, WENCESLAO C.PASCUAL, JR., INTESTATE ESTATE OF ELEUTERIO T.PASCUAL, AVELINO PASCUAL, ISOCELES PASCUAL,LEIDA PASCUAL-MARTINES, VIRGINIA PASCUAL-NER,NONA PASCUAL-FERNANDO, OCTAVIO PASCUAL,GERANAIA PASCUAL-DUBERT, and THE HONORABLEPRESIDING JUDGE MANUEL S. PADOLINA of Br. 162,

RTC, Pasig, Metro Manila, respondents.G.R. No. 84240March 25, 1992

PARAS, J.:FACTS:Petitioners Olivia and Hermes Pascual are theacknowledged natural children of the late EligioPascual, the latter being a full blood brother of thedecedent Don Andres Pascual, who died intestatewithout any issue, legitimate, acknowledged natural,adopted or spurious children.. Adela SoldevillaPascual the surviving spouse of the late Don Andes

Pascual filed w/ the RTC Branch 162, a specialproceeding case no.7554 for administration of theintestate estate of her late husband. Olivia andHermes are illegitimate children of Eligio Pascual(although they contend that the term “illegitimatechildren” as described in art 992 should be construedas “spurious children”). 

ISSUE:Whether or not Article 992 of the Civil Code of thePhilippines, can be interpreted to exclude recognizednatural children from the inheritance of thedeceased.

HELD:Article 992 of the Civil Code provides a barrier or ironcurtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession abintestato between the illegitimate child and thelegitimate children and relatives of the father ormother of said legitimate child. They may have anatural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by lawfor the purposes of Article 992.Eligio Pascual is a legitimate child but petitioners arehis illegitimate children.Applying the above doctrine to the case at bar,respondent IAC did not err in holding that petitioners

herein cannot represent their father Eligio Pascual inthe succession of the latter to the intestate estate ofthe decedent Andres Pascual, full blood brother oftheir father.

8/10/2019 Director of Lands Vs

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/director-of-lands-vs 2/2