Republic vs San Lorenzo

FACTS:

• San Lorenzo Development Corporation filed with the MTCC of Danao City an application for registration of title to a parcel of land. This was opposed by the Republic
•  The date for the initial hearing was reset for many times
• The case called aloud in open court to determine whether there were other oppositors aside from the Republic. There being none, the court issued an Order of General Default
• Respondent corporation presented several documents and witnesses as evidence
• MTCC rendered decision granting respondent’s application
• It is important to take note of the following dates:

Ø  May 15, 1988 – The trial court issued an order

Ø  June 6, 1988 – The notice of initial hearing was issued

Ø  September 23, 1988 – The hearing was actually held

• On appeal, petitioner Republic maintains that the MCTC never acquired jurisdiction over the case on account of its failure to conduct the initial hearing thereof within the period fixed in Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 which mandates that the date and hour of initial hearing shall not be earlier than 45 days nor later than 90 days from the date of the Order.
• In such case, the initial hearing should have been set NOT earlier than June 29, 1988 (45 days from May 15, 1998) and NOT later than August 13, 1998 (which is 90 days from May 15, 1998).
• CA dismissed Republic’s appeal.

ISSUE: W/N the defective notice of publication of initial hearing vested the trial court with jurisdiction

RULING:

• YES. Respondent Corporation should NOT BE FAULTED if the initial hearing was conducted on September 23, 1995 was outside the 90-day period set forth under Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. Respondent Corporation has substantially complied with the requirements under the registration of the land.
• A party cannot intervene in matters within the exclusive power of the trial court. No fault is attributable to such party if the trial court errs on matters within its sole power. It is unfair to punish an applicant for an act or omission over which the applicant has neither responsibility nor control, especially if the applicant has complied with all the requirements of the law.
• As held in Republic vs Manna Properties, The duty and the power to set the hearing date lie with the land registration court. After an applicant has filed his application, the law requires the issuance of a court order setting the initial hearing date. The notice of initial hearing is a court document. The notice of initial hearing is signed by the judge and copy of the notice is mailed by the clerk of court to the LRA [Land Registration Authority]. This involves a process to which the party applicant absolutely has no participation.
•  However, the Supreme Court found that the respondent corporation can only prove possession because of the tax declarations it presented for the year 1948, 1963 and 1964. This does NOT constitute the evidence necessary to acquire the title through adverse occupation under CA 141. All that the CENRO certificate evidences is the alienability of the land involved, not the open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation thereof by the respondent or its predecessors-in-interest for the period prescribed by law.
•  Hence, SC ruled in favor of Republic