Scribd
Upload
382 views2 pages

The Director of Lands vs. CA

This case involves a petition for land registration filed by Teodoro Abistado under the Presidential Decree 1529. The law requires publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. However, in this case the notice was only published in the Official Gazette, not a newspaper. The lower court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction due to the failure to comply with the publication requirement. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the publication requirement under the law is mandatory and there is no room for interpretation where the law speaks clearly. Since the requirement was not complied with, the application for land registration must be dismissed without prejudice.

Uploaded by

Donna Grace Guyo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
382 views2 pages

The Director of Lands vs. CA

This case involves a petition for land registration filed by Teodoro Abistado under the Presidential Decree 1529. The law requires publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. However, in this case the notice was only published in the Official Gazette, not a newspaper. The lower court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction due to the failure to comply with the publication requirement. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the publication requirement under the law is mandatory and there is no room for interpretation where the law speaks clearly. Since the requirement was not complied with, the application for land registration must be dismissed without prejudice.

Uploaded by

Donna Grace Guyo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

WHERE THE LAW SPEAKS IN CLEAR AND CATEGORICAL

LANGUAGE, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION,


VACILLATION, OR EQUIVOCATION, THERE IS ROOM ONLY
FOR APPLICATION.

THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner,


vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and TEODORO ABISTADO, substituted by MARGARITA,
MARISSA, MARIBEL, ARNOLD and MARY ANN, all surnamed
ABISTADO, respondents.
G.R. NO. 102858. JULY 28, 1997
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.
Records show that applicants failed to comply with the provisions of Sec. 23(1) of P.D. 1529 requiring the
applicants to publish the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
The initial hearing was published only in the Official Gazette.
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 Teodoro Abistado.
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.
Statute/s subject of construction:

P.D. 1529 (Sec. 23(1) )


requires the applicants to publish the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation
in the Philippines

ISSUE:
WON the land registration court can validly confirm and register the title of private respondents in the
absence of publication in a newspaper of general circulation.

HELD:
No. The petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision and Resolution are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The application of private respondent for land registration is DISMISSED without prejudice. No
costs.

The law used the term shall in prescribing the work to be done by the
Commissioner of Land Registration upon the latters receipt of the court order
setting the time for initial hearing. The said word denotes an imperative and thus
indicates the mandatory character of a statute. While concededly such literal
mandate is not an absolute rule in statutory construction, as its import ultimately
depends upon its context in the entire provision, we hold that in the present case
the term must be understood in its normal mandatory meaning.
Admittedly, there was failure to comply with the explicit publication requirement of
the law. Private respondents did not proffer any excuse; even if they had, it would
not have mattered because the statute itself allows no excuses. Ineludibly, this
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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy