GR No. 136588
July 20, 2000
Facts
Respondent filed a petition for reconstitution of a title. Such petition was granted notwithstanding the failure to comply with the requirement of posting of the “Notice of Hearing” at the main entrance of the provincial building. The CA ruled that there is already substantial compliance with the requirements prescribed by Republic Act No. 26 because reconstitution of title is a proceeding in rem. Hence, NOTICE OF HEARING BY PROPER PUBLICATION IS SUFFICIENT TO CLOTHE THE COURT WITH JURISDICTION (Calalang v. Register of Deeds Quezon City)
The CA provided that the Branch Sheriff issued two (2) Certificates of Posting at the main entrance of the municipal building where the land [lay]. Coupled with the successive publications in the Official Gazette, it was more than enough to serve the purpose of notifying all the parties concerned that a petition ha[d] been filed and that whoever ha[d] an interest therein to oppose it for good cause should come to court and prove his claim.
With that, the Republic filed this petition.
Issue
Whether or not there is compliance with the requirements provided by law to clothe the Court with jurisdiction.
Held
No. Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. It cannot be (1) granted by the agreement of the parties; (2) acquired, waived, enlarged or diminished by any act or omission of the parties; or (3) conferred by the acquiescence of the courts. In other words, the court’s acquisition of hinged on a strict compliance with the requirements of the law.
According to the Supreme Court in the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals, the requirements laid down by Republic Act No 26 are mandatory and compliance with them is jurisdictional. One of the requirements laid down by RA 26 is that the Notice of Petition must be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing.
In the present case, it is undisputed that the Notice of Hearing of respondent’s Petition for Reconstitution was not posted at the main entrance of the provincial building. Clearly, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.
Hence, the principle of substantial compliance cannot be applied to the present case, as the trial court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over the Petition hinged on a strict compliance with the requirements of the law.