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 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Director of Lands is correct that
newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing
in 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 land
registration 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 HONORABLE
PRESIDING JUDGE MANUEL S. PADOLINA of Br. 162,
RTC, Pasig, Metro Manila, respondents.
G.R. No. 84240
March 25, 1992

PARAS, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioners Olivia and Hermes Pascual are the
acknowledged natural children of the late Eligio
Pascual, the latter being a full blood brother of the
decedent Don Andres Pascual, who died intestate
without any issue, legitimate, acknowledged natural,
adopted or spurious children.. Adela Soldevilla
Pascual the surviving spouse of the late Don Andes
Pascual filed w/ the RTC Branch 162, a special
proceeding case no.7554 for administration of the
intestate estate of her late husband. Olivia and
Hermes are illegitimate children of Eligio Pascual
(although they contend that the term illegitimate
children as described in art 992 should be construed
as spurious children).

ISSUE:
Whether or not Article 992 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, can be interpreted to exclude recognized
natural children from the inheritance of the
deceased.

HELD:
Article 992 of the Civil Code provides a barrier or iron
curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a succession ab
intestato between the illegitimate child and the
legitimate children and relatives of the father or
mother of said legitimate child. They may have a
natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law
for the purposes of Article 992.
Eligio Pascual is a legitimate child but petitioners are
his 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 in
the succession of the latter to the intestate estate of
the decedent Andres Pascual, full blood brother of
their father.

Anselma Diaz v. IAC and Felisa Pamuti Jardin
GR No. L-66574(150 SCRA 645) June 17, 1987Paras, J.
Nature:
Petition for Review
Doctrine:
Right of Representation is admitted only within the
legitimate family
Facts:

Felisa is a niece of Simona who together with Felisas
mother Juliana werethe only legitimate children of
spouses Felipe and Petronilla;

Juliana married Simon and out of their union were
born Felisa and anotherchild who died during infancy;

Simona is the widow of Pascual and mother of Pablo;

Pablo was the only legitimate son of his parents
Pascual and Simona;

Pascual died in 1970; Pablo in 1973 and Simona in
1976;

Pablo at the time of his death was survived by his
mother Simona and sixminor natural children: four
minor children with Anselma Diaz and twominor
children with Felixberta.

1976 Judge Jose Raval declared Felisa as the sole
legitimate heir of Simona

Petitioners Anselma and Felixberta as guardians of
their minor childrenfile for opposition and motion to
exclude Felisa from further taking part orintervening
in the settlement of the intestate estate of Simona

1980 Judge Bleza issued an order excluding Felisa
from further takingpart or intervening and declared
her to be not an heir of Simona

Felisas motion for recon was denied, and she filed her
appeal to theIntermediate Appellate Court declaring
her as the sole heir of Simona
Issue:
Who are the legal heirs of Simona, her niece Felisa or
her grandchildren(the natural children of Pablo)?
Felisa
Ruling:

The 6 minor children cannot represent their father
Pablo in the successionof the latter to the intestate
estate of his legitimate mother Simonabecause of the
barrier provided for under Art. 992 of the Civil Code
o
Art 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab
intestatofrom the legitimate children and relatives of
his father or mother;nor shall such children or
relatives inherit in the same manner fromthe
illegitimate child.

Pablo is a legitimate child. However, his 6 minor
children are illegitimate.

Art 992 provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it
prohibits absolutely asuccession ab intestate between
the illegitimate child and the legitimatechildren and
relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate
child. Theymay have a natural tie of blood, but this is
not recognized by law for thepurposes of Art. 992.

JBL Reyes reflections on this which also finds full
support from othercivilists:
o
In the Spanish Civil Code of 1989, the right of
representation wasadmitted only within the
legitimate family.
o
An illegitimate child cannot inherit ab intestate from
the legitimatechildren and relatives of his father and
mother