Director of Lands vs Court of Appeals

G. R. No. 102858, 28 July 1997, 276 SCRA 276

FACTS:
1. On 8 December 1986, private respondent Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original
registration of his title over 648 sq.m. of land under PD 1529 however during the pendency of
the petition, Teodoro died hence his heirs were substituted as applicants, represented by their
aunt, who was appointed as their guardian ad litem.
2. The Land registration court dismissed its petition for want of jurisdiction stating that the
applicants failed to comply with the provisions of Section 23 (1) of PD 1529 requiring the
Applicants to publish the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines and was only published in the Official Gazette and thus the court has not legally
acquired jurisdiction over the instant petition for want of compliance with the mandatory
provision requiring publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general
circulation.
3. The case was appealed by the private respondents in the CA, which set aside the decision of
the trial court and ordered the registration of the title in the name of Teodoro Abistado. The
motion for reconsideration was denied, thus this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not publication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration case
is MANDATORY or DIRECTORY in relation to Section 23(1) of PD 1529.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that provision of the law is MANDATORY. The law used the term
SHALL and denotes an IMPERATIVE and thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute, its
importance ultimately depends upon its context in the entire provision, and the Court holds that the
present case must be understood in its normal mandatory meaning.
Land registration is a proceeding in rem and as such is validated essentially in publication this being
so the process must be strictly complied with, in that the one who is instituting the action must be
able to prove his title against the whole world. Hence, before the claimed property is taken from
concerned parties and registered in the name of the applicant, said parties must be given notice and
opportunity to oppose, the reason of which is DUE PROCESS.
In the present case, there was failure to comply with the explicit publication requirement of the law.
The Court has declared that where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room
for interpretation; there is only room for application and there is no alternative. Thus, the case was
dismissed without prejudice to reapplication after all the legal requisites shall have been duly
complied with.