Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    Republic Vs Herbieto

    Uploaded by

    sophia
    This case involves a dispute over the registration of two parcels of land claimed by the Herbieto brothers. The Republic opposed the registration, arguing that the brothers did not meet the requirements for adverse possession and their documents proving ownership were not genuine. The MTC granted registration, which was affirmed by the CA. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the MTC lacked jurisdiction because the publication of notice occurred more than three months after the initial hearing, depriving others of the chance to oppose registration. The Court also found that the brothers did not prove continuous ownership since June 12, 1945 as required for imperfect titles over formerly public land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic Vs Herbieto

    Uploaded by

    sophia
    51 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over the registration of two parcels of land claimed by the Herbieto brothers. The Republic opposed the registration, arguing that the brothers did not meet the requirements for adverse possession and their documents proving ownership were not genuine. The MTC granted registration, which was affirmed by the CA. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the MTC lacked jurisdiction because the publication of notice occurred more than three months after the initial hearing, depriving others of the chance to oppose registration. The Court also found that the brothers did not prove continuous ownership since June 12, 1945 as required for imperfect titles over formerly public land.

    Original Title

    1. Republic vs Herbieto

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the registration of two parcels of land claimed by the Herbieto brothers. The Republic opposed the registration, arguing that the brothers did not meet the requirements for adverse possession and their documents proving ownership were not genuine. The MTC granted registration, which was affirmed by the CA. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the MTC lacked jurisdiction because the publication of notice occurred more than three months after the initial hearing, depriving others of the chance to oppose registration. The Court also found that the brothers did not prove continuous ownership since June 12, 1945 as required for imperfect titles over formerly public land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    51 views2 pages

    Republic Vs Herbieto

    Uploaded by

    sophia
    This case involves a dispute over the registration of two parcels of land claimed by the Herbieto brothers. The Republic opposed the registration, arguing that the brothers did not meet the requirements for adverse possession and their documents proving ownership were not genuine. The MTC granted registration, which was affirmed by the CA. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the MTC lacked jurisdiction because the publication of notice occurred more than three months after the initial hearing, depriving others of the chance to oppose registration. The Court also found that the brothers did not prove continuous ownership since June 12, 1945 as required for imperfect titles over formerly public land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Republic vs Herbieto

    Facts:

     Respondents are Herbieto brothers, Jeremias and David, who filed with the MTC a single
    application for registration of two parcels of land. They claimed to be owners by virtue of its
    purchase from their parents

     Republic filed an opposition arguing that: (1) Respondents failed to comply with the period of
    adverse possession required by law; (2) Respondents’ muniments of title were not genuine and
    did not constitute competent and sufficient evidence of bona fide acquisition of the Subject
    Lots; and (3) The Subject Lots were part of the public domain

     MTC granted the application for registration of the parcels of land of Jeremias and David.

     CA affirmed the decision of MTC holding that the subject property, being alienable since 1963 as
    shown by CENRO Report dated June 23, 1963, may now be the object of prescription, thus
    susceptible of private ownership.

     Republic appealed to the SC contending that 1) MTC had no jurisdiction since there was a
    procedural defect in filing of a single application for two parcels of land; 2) Respondents failed to
    establish that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, and
    adverse possession of the Subject Lots in the concept of owners since 12 June 1945 or earlier.

    ISSUE: W/N there is a procedural defect which resulted to MTC’s lack of jurisdiction

    HELD:

     YES, but not with the ground stated by the petitioner, but because respondents, failed to comply
    with the publication requirements mandated by the Property Registration Decree.

     Misjoinder of causes of action and parties do not involve a question of jurisdiction of the court
    to hear and proceed with the case.[26] They are not even accepted grounds for dismissal
    thereof

     PUBLICATION: MTC did not acquire jurisdiction because publication on the Freeman and the
    Banat News was only done 3 months after the hearing which renders inutile the intention of the
    mandatory publication. In the instant Petition, the initial hearing was held on 03 September
    1999.  While the Notice thereof was printed in the issue of the Official Gazette, dated 02 August
    1999, and officially released on 10 August 1999, it was published in The Freeman Banat News
    only on 19 December 1999, more than three months after the initial hearing. Indubitably, such
    publication of the Notice, way after the date of the initial hearing, would already be worthless
    and ineffective.  Whoever read the Notice as it was published in The Freeman Banat News and
    had a claim to the Subject Lots was deprived of due process for it was already too late for him to
    appear before the MTC on the day of the initial hearing to oppose respondents’ application for
    registration, and to present his claim and evidence in support of such claim
     With regard to period of possession, Respondents failed to comply with the required period of
    possession of the Subject Lots for the judicial confirmation or legalization of imperfect or
    incomplete title. The said lots are public lands classified as alienable and disposable only on June
    25, 1963 and the respondents were seeking for a confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title
    through judicial legalization. Under Sec.48 of the Public Land Act, which is the ruling law in this
    case, Respondents were not able to prove their continuous ownership of the land since June 12,
    1945 or earlier, because said lands were only classified as alienable and disposable only on June
    25, 1963

    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