TANG SING PAN V. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (CIVIL)

In Director of Lands v. Benitez, the Court categorically stated that publication is essential to establish jurisdiction in land registration and cadastral cases, without which the court cannot acquire jurisdiction thereon or obtain any authority to proceed therewith.

it is incumbent upon the petitioners to establish by positive proof that the publication requirement has been complied with, that with the fact that they are the ones who stood to be benefited by adjudication of the subject lot. Regrettably, they failed to present proof of publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing.

There being no indication at all from the records of the case that notice of the Order for Initial Hearing was published in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation, without which the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case, the decision rendered by the CFI confirming petitioners' title over the subject lot is void ab initio for having been rendered without jurisdiction.

SPOUSES GULLA V. HEIRS OF LABRADOR (CIVIL)

The trial court, the RTC, and the CA were one in ruling that the 562 sqm property is part of the public domain, hence, beyond the commerce of men and not capable of registration. In fact, the land is within the salvage zone fronting China Sea as well as the property covered by OCT P-13350 in the name of respondents.

The provision relied upon is Article 440 of the New Civil code, which states that " the ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially." This however, does not apply in this case, considering that the 562 sqm lot is a foreshore land adjacent to the sea which is alternately covered and left dry by ordinary flow of the tides.

Such property belongs to the public domain and is no longer needed for public use. Respondents thus have no possessory right over the property unless upon application, the government through the then Bureau of Lands had granted them permit.

There is no question that no such permit was issued or granted in favor of respondents. This being the case, respondents have no cause of action to cause petitioners' eviction from the subject property. The real party-in-interest to file a complaint against petitioners for recovery of possession of the subject property and cause petitioners' eviction therefrom is the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General. Consequently, petitioners cannot be required to pay any rentals to respondents for their possession of the property.

HEIRS OF REGALADO V. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (CIVIL)

Marina's heirs as applicants in this land registration case "bear the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land sought to be registered forms part of the public domain." This they failed to discharge.

In addition, other than Marina's uncorroborated testimony given in a previous attempt to have the property registered, there is not proof to sustain the trial court's finding that Marina, her uncle, aunt, and other relatives have been residing in the property for more than 30 years and that she herself had been residing there for 15 years when a Tomas Antero executed the deed of assignment in her favor.

In fine, the trial court's finding that Marina had been in open, continuous, and adverse possession in the concept of owner under a bona fide claim of ownership fails.