Thirty-nine years from the time a land case was filed by the Bureau of Lands in 1971, siblings Lolita C. Javier and Jovito R. Cerna were declared owners of more than seven hectares of land in Lupon, Davao Oriental in a decision handed down by the trial court in 2010.
Seven years later in 2017, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court’s ruling as it granted the petition of the government through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on issue of jurisdiction.
But the Supreme Court (SC), in a decision promulgated last June 14 and made public last Oct. 26, granted the petition of Javier and Cerna, reversed the CA, and reinstated the 2010 ruling of the Lupon town regional trial court (RTC).
The dispositive portion of the SC decision written by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen:
“WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The March 8, 2010 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Lupon, Davao Oriental in LRC Rec. No. N-575, Cadastral Case No. N-42 is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.”
Case records showed that on Aug. 20, 1971, the Bureau of Lands filed a cadastral case involving more than 2,540.5 hectares of land which had been subdivided into 1,079 lots in Lupon town.
On June 25, 1974, Javier and Cerna filed their respective answers and asserted ownership over portions of the property.
Thirty-one years later on Jan. 28, 2005, the siblings filed a motion for the RTC to set the case for hearing.
On Feb. 16, 2005, the RTC set the case for initial hearing for April 9, 2005. The provincial prosecutor of Davao Oriental represented the OSG during the hearing.
In one of the hearings, Javier was presented as the lone witness. She testified that she and her brother have been in continuous possession of the land after it was given to them by their father in 1974. Since then, she said she and her brother have occupied and cultivated the land, and have declared it for tax purposes.
On Sept. 4, 2006, the RTC admitted the documentary evidence presented by Javier and Cerna.
Later, the trial court ordered the siblings to hire a geodetic engineer to conduct a partition survey of the lot in accordance with their Extra Judicial Agreement of Partition subject to the approval of the Land Management Services of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Thereafter, Javier and Cerna submitted a duly approved subdivision survey.
On March 8, 2010, the RTC decided in favor of the siblings and declared them owners of the more than seven hectares of land.
On March 26, 2013, the OSG filed an appeal before the CA. The OSG claimed that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case for failure of Javier and Cerna to prove the publication of the notice of hearing in the Official Gazette.
When the CA granted the OSG’s appeal, Javier and Cerna elevated the case to the SC. Ruling in their favor, the SC said:
“Petitioners (Javier and Cerna) in this case proved that the trial court's Notice of Initial Hearing dated Dec. 10, 1973 was published twice in the Official Gazette on Jan. 1 and 28, 1974, after the petition was filed on Aug. 20, 1971 by the Director of Lands. Compliance with the publication requirement can also be gleaned from the fact that petitioners managed to file their Answer to the petition on June 25, 1974, or within six months from the said publication.
“Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to consider the documentary evidence, which includes the proof of publication, submitted by petitioners on appeal despite admitting that it formed part of the documentary evidence elevated before it.
“Having proven that the publication requirement has been complied with, the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the cadastral case for this sole reason.
“Here, respondent Director of Lands filed the petition for cadastral proceedings as early as August of 1971, but, for some unknown reason, the case slept for decades, and was only revived on Jan. 28, 2005, upon motion of petitioners.
“During trial, respondent (Bureau of Lands), through the Public Prosecutor, actively participated in the case yet it never brought up the issue of lack of jurisdiction and did not oppose petitioners' motion to have the lots adjudicated in their favor.
“Petitioners likewise, went through the entire process of having the lots surveyed and subdivided, during the entire cadastral proceedings, without any opposition from respondent.
“Thirty-nine years after respondent first filed its petition, Judgment was rendered in favor of petitioners. Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied by the trial court. Respondent was furnished with every copy of the pleadings and motions filed, and even actively participated during the trial.
“Accordingly, estoppel by laches had set in. Respondent had all the opportunity to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction before the trial court, but it was only after the trial ruled against it twice – first, in its judgment, and second, in denying the motion for reconsideration – that it saw it fit to assail its jurisdiction.
“It only raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction for the first time on appeal to the Court of Appeals in 2013, or after the lapse of 42 years from the filing of the petition.
“To have it question the trial court’s jurisdiction, when it could have done so at an earliest time and on several occasions, would be the height of injustice and would condone its apparent negligence in handling its own petition for cadastral proceedings.”