Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > July 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16011 July 26, 1960 - DOMINGO T. PARRAS v. LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION

108 Phil 1142:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-16011. July 26, 1960.]

DOMINGO T. PARRAS, applicant-appellee, v. LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION, Oppositor-Appellant.

Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres for Appellant.

Antonio Bengzon, Jr. for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; AMENDMENT OF STATUTES; PAYMENT OF COST OF PUBLICATION OF INITIAL NOTICE OF HEARING IN REGISTRATION OF LAND. — When the amendatory act purports to set out the original act or section as amended, all matters in the act or section that are omitted in the amendment are considered repealed. (U. S. v. One Ice Box, 37 F. [2d] 120 [N. D. Ill. 1930]; Mitchell v. Walden Motor Co., 235 Ala 34, 177 So 151 [1937]; Buckman v. Board of Directors, 188 Ark 396, 66 Sw [2d] 619 (1934), and others.) In the case at bar, the suppression in the amendatory act of the provision exempting the applicant from the obligation to pay for the cost of publication of an application for the registration of land, can not mean but a withdrawal by the legislature of such a privilege allowed in the previous law. In other words, after the enactment of Republic Act 117, the cost of publication of the notice of initial hearing, required by Section 31 of Act 496, shall be borne by the applicant. In this connection, paragraph 2 of the Special Provision of Republic Act 2300 (Appropriation Law), providing for payment of the cost of publication, is actually nothing more than an express statement of the non-availability of funds for free publication of notices, which is permissible, as a consequence of the abrogation of the exemption clause in Section 114 of the Land Registration Act.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


In connection with the application for registration of his land, Domingo T. Parras was required by the Land Registration Commissioner to remit to his (the Commissioner’s) office, "pursuant to Paragraph 2, page 445, Special Provisions of Republic Act No. 2300, 1 otherwise known as the Appropriations Act for the current fiscal year", the sum of P57.00 as estimated cost of publication in the Official Gazette of the initial notice of the hearing of the case (Land Registration Case No. N-2536, L. R. C. Record (No. N-17331, Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.) Objecting to this requirement, the applicant filed a petition in the land registration court claiming that the insertion of the aforecited provision, which allegedly is revenue-raising, in the appropriation act is unconstitutional, and thus prayed that he be exempted from making such deposit and that the Land Registration Commissioner and the Director of Printing be ordered to publish in the Official Gazette the notice of initial hearing without requiring applicant to pay the cost.

This petition was opposed by the Land Registration Commissioner, contending, among others, that the requirement to land registration applicants to pay the cost of publication was not made for the first time in the disputed Special Provisions of Republic Act 2300; that although under Section 114 of Act 496, as amended by Act 2866, where the value of the land to be registered is less than P50,000.00, the applicant is exempted from payment of the publication expenses, such exemption was eliminated with the re-amendment of the same Section 114 by Republic Act 117.

Holding that Republic Act 117 amended Section 114 of Act 496 only insofar as it increased the rates payable by the applicant, upon the filing of the application and did not actually eliminate the exemption now being claimed by the applicant, and that the insertion of the revenue raising Paragraph 2, Special Provisions in the Appropriation Act is unconstitutional, the Court ordered the Land Registration Commissioner to publish the notice of initial hearing of the case in the Official Gazette without requiring the applicant to pay the cost. From this order, the Land Registration Commissioner appealed directly to this Court on purely legal grounds.

Section 114 of the Land Registration Act, as amended by Act 2866, in its pertinent part, reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 114. Fees payable under this Act shall be as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"From the time of filing the application until the final determination of each case, for all services performed by the clerk or his deputies in each case, except the taking of affidavits or acknowledgments, including filing, entering, indexing, and recording all documents, plans, orders, decrees, and other papers, all notices by mail or publication, and a certified copy of the decree of registration, if any there be, there shall be paid by the applicant to the clerk the sum in the following table corresponding to the value of the property, which shall be its assessed value or, if the property has not been declared for purposes of the land tax, its market value:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"Provided, however, That in all cases in which the assessed value of the property, or its market value, if not assessed, covered by any proceeding, is more than fifty thousand pesos and the expenses incurred by the General Land Registration Office for the preparation of the notice, the publication thereof in the Official Gazette, and the stamps used in mailing copies of said notice to the interested parties exceeds the sum paid as fees under paragraphs (7), (8), and (9) 2 of the schedule above inserted, such excess shall be refunded by the applicant to the General Land Registration Office prior to the issuance of the final decree by the chief of said office: Provided further, That in case of dismissal of the proceedings, the court shall issue an order of execution against the applicant for the collection of the said excess expense.

x       x       x"

(Emphasis supplied.)

The above-quoted provisions are explicit that (1) the filing fees paid to the clerk of court are for certain services which expressly include the mailing or publication of all notices, and (2) that in case the expenses for the mailing or publication of the notices exceeds the filing fees paid and required for lands valued at more than P50,000.00, the applicant will have to refund such excess to the land registration office. In other words, an applicant for registration is exempt from paying the cost of publication when his land is valued at less than P50,000.00.

On the other hand, Republic Act 117, 3 entitled AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN OF ACT NUMBERED FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY SIX, ENTITLED "THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT," AS AMENDED, FIXING A NEW SCHEDULED OF FEES FOR CLERKS OF COURTS, SHERIFFS AND REGISTERS OF DEEDS, in Section 1 thereof, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 1. Section one hundred and fourteen of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six, entitled "The Land Registration Act’, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SEC. 114. Fees payable under this Act shall be as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A. Fees payable to the Clerk of Court. — The fees payable to the clerk of court or his deputies shall be as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. For filing an application for the registration of land, the fees shall be based on the assessed value of the property for the current year, in accordance with the following schedule: (Then follows a schedule of fees whose amounts depended upon the value of the land sought to be registered.) (Italics supplied)

x       x       x


It will be seen that the new law has eliminated the provision which specifically included the publication of the notices as within the application of the fees paid by the applicant, as well as the express injunction that applicants whose properties are worth more than P50,000.00 shall reimburse the Clerk of Court for any excess in the cost of publication over the amount of fees paid by them. The suppression in the amendatory act of the provision exempting the applicant from the obligation to pay for the cost of publication of his application can not mean but a withdrawal by the legislature of such a privilege allowed in the previous law. It can not be said, as ruled by the lower court, that Republic Act 117, in amending Section 114 of Act 496, merely changed the rates of fees fixed in the original law. That Congress intended Republic Act 117 to completely amend or replace Section 114, as amended by Act 2866, in its entirety and not merely to increase the rates of filing fees, is evident from the specific provision thereof that the section was "further amended to read as follows:" Plainly, it is a re-enactment of the whole subject in-substitution of the previous one which thereafter disappears entirely.

The intent of the legislature to set out the original act or section as amended is most commonly indicated by a statement in the amendatory act that the original law is amended "to read as follows." The legislature thereby declares that the new statute is a substitute for the original act or section. Only those provisions of the original act or section repeated in the amendment are retained. (1 Sutherland Statutory Construction, 3rd Ed., pp. 420-421.) (Italics supplied.)

When the amendatory act purports to set out the original act or section as amended, all matters in the act or section that are omitted in the amendment are considered repealed. (U. S. v. One Ice Box, 37 F. [2d] 120 [N. D. Ill. 1930]; Mitchell v. Walden Motor Co., 235 Ala 34, 177 So 151 [1937]; Buckman v. Board of Directors, 188 Ark 396, 66 Sw [2d] 619 (1934), and others.) (Italics supplied.)

It is clear, therefore, that after the enactment of Republic Act 117, the cost of publication of the notice of initial hearing, required by Section 31 of Act 496, shall be borne by the applicant. Needless to state, in this connection, that Paragraph 2 of the Special Provisions of Republic Act 2300 (Appropriation Law) is actually nothing more than an express statement of the non-availability of funds for free publication of notices, which is permissible, as a consequence of the abrogation of the exemption clause in Section 114 of the Land Registration Act.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside, and applicant is hereby directed to pay the publication expenses, as required by the Land Registration Commissioner. Costs are taxed against the applicant- appellee. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. "Notwithstanding the amounts specifically provided for in this Act for the Land Registration Commission, the expenses for the publication in the Official Gazette of notices of initial hearing of applications for registration of land under Act No. 496, as amended, shall be borne by the applicants."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. These paragraphs refer to lands whose value is more than P50,000.00.

3. Which took effect on June 7, 1947.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12998 July 25, 1960 - BIENVENIDA JOCSON, ET AL. v. MANUEL P. SILOS

    108 Phil 923

  • G.R. No. L-13299 July 25, 1960 - PERFECTO ADRID, ET AL. v. ROSARIO MORGA, ETC.

    108 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-14934 July 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA BULAN, ET AL.

    108 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-11241 July 26, 1960 - VALENTIN ILO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    108 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-11834 July 26, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GREGORIO ABIERA, ET AL.

    108 Phil 943

  • G.R. No. L-11840 July 26, 1960 - ANTONIO C. GOQUIOLAY, ET AL. v. WASHINGTON Z. SYCIP, ET AL.

    108 Phil 947

  • G.R. No. L-11994 July 26, 1960 - LUISA A. VDA. DE DEL CASTILLO v. RAFAEL P. GUERRERO

    108 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-12495 July 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO LIDRES

    108 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-12628 July 26, 1960 - IN RE: YU KAY GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 1001

  • G.R. No. L-12984 July 26, 1960 - WARNER, BARNES & CO., LTD. v. EDMUNDO YASAY, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1005

  • G.R. No. L-12999 July 26, 1960 - PAFLU v. HON. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-13267 July 26, 1960 - SALVADOR CRESPO v. MARIA BOLANDOS, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-13364 July 26, 1960 - HIND SUGAR CO., INC. v. HON. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1026

  • G.R. No. L-13373 July 26, 1960 - LUNETA MOTOR CO. v. MAXIMINO SALVADOR, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1037

  • G.R. No. L-13646 July 26, 1960 - BENITO MANALANSAN v. LUIS MANALANG, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1041

  • G.R. No. L-13684 July 26, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-13953 July 26, 1960 - MONS. CARLOS INQUIMBOY v. MARIA CONCEPCION PAEZ VDA. DE CRUZ

    108 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-14096 July 26, 1960 - CITY OF MANILA v. FORTUNE ENTERPRISES, INC.

    108 Phil 1058

  • G.R. No. L-14229 July 26, 1960 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1063

  • G.R. No. L-14258 July 26, 1960 - NATIONAL DEV’T CO. v. JUAN ARALAR, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1068

  • G.R. No. L-14313 July 26, 1960 - DIONISIO ESGUERRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 1078

  • G.R. No. L-14428 July 26, 1960 - AGATON SEGARRA v. FELIX MARONILLA, JR.

    108 Phil 1086

  • G.R. No. L-14432 July 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO LIM

    108 Phil 1091

  • G.R. No. L-14505 July 26, 1960 - MIGUEL KAIRUZ v. ELENA S. PACIO, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1097

  • G.R. No. L-14519 July 26, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    108 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-14550 July 26, 1960 - IN RE: ONG KUE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    108 Phil 1109

  • G.R. No. L-14689 July 26, 1960 - GENERAL MARITIME STEVEDORES’ UNION OF THE PHILS, ET AL. v. SOUTH SEA SHIPPING LINE, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1112

  • G.R. No. L-14743 July 26, 1960 - GLORIA ABRERA v. LUDOLFO V. MUÑOZ

    108 Phil 1124

  • G.R. No. L-15544 July 26, 1960 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES INC. v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

    108 Phil 1129

  • G.R. No. L-15743 July 26, 1960 - OMBE v. VICENTE DIGA

    108 Phil 1137

  • G.R. No. L-16011 July 26, 1960 - DOMINGO T. PARRAS v. LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION

    108 Phil 1142

  • G.R. No. L-16263 July 26, 1960 - DR. JOSE CUYEGKENG v. DR. PEDRO M. CRUZ

    108 Phil 1147

  • G.R. No. L-16464 July 26, 1960 - VICENTE MALINAO v. MARCOS RAVELES

    108 Phil 1159

  • G.R. No. L-16835 July 26, 1960 - FILEMON SALCEDO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    108 Phil 1164

  • G.R. No. L-13435 July 27, 1960 - EUSEBIO MANUEL v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, SR., ET AL.

    109 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13632 July 27, 1960 - FEDERICO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL. v. HON. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-13851 July 27, 1960 - DEOGRACIAS F. MALONZO v. GREGORIA T. GALANG, ET AL.

    109 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-15853 July 27, 1960 - FERNANDO AQUINO v. CONCHITA DELIZO

    109 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-13369 July 28, 1960 - RICARDO PALMA v. HON. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, ETC.

    109 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. L-11151 July 30, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. L-12747 July 30, 1960 - RIZAL CEMENT CO., INC. v. RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS’ UNION (FFW), ET AL.

    109 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-13268 July 30, 1960 - LUCIANA SASES, ET AL. v. HON. PASTOR P. REYES, ET AL.

    109 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-13760 July 30, 1960 - FILEMON MARIBAO v. LUCIO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-13767 July 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAQUITO PRIAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-14806 July 30, 1960 - ZAMBOANGA COPRA PROCUREMENT CORP. v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

    109 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-14936 July 30, 1960 - GENERAL SHIPPING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL.

    109 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. L-14970 July 30, 1960 - MARIA B. CASTRO v. GERONIMO DE LOS REYES

    109 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-15093 July 30, 1960 - NARIC v. CELSO HENSON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 81