This  is an original petition addressed to this court by the Philippine  Manufacturing Company under section 513 of the Code  of Civil Procedure whereby relief is sought from an order made by the respondent judge in a cadastral proceeding pending  before  him  adjudicating  to  the respondents bearing the name of Cabañgis a  lot indicated in the amended cadastral  plan as lot No.  40, block No. 3035. In his return to the  order to show cause, the Director of Lands aligns himself  with the petitioner so far as respects the prayer for the annulment of the order complained of and the granting of a hearing, but he claims that the lot in question belongs to the Government.  A demurrer was at first submitted in behalf of all the respondents except the Director of Lands, but this was overruled by us and  an answer was  then interposed  for them  by  their attorney, after which the cause was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts and certain additional proof produced by the parties.

On February 4, 1922, the Director of Lands, on behalf of the  Government  of the Philippine Islands,  instituted  a cadastral proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Manila  for the purpose  of procuring  an adjudication of the titles to  certain  lands in  the Tondo  District of Manila. (G.  L. R.  0.  Cad, Record No.  373.)  Among the properties covered by the preliminary survey in this cadastral were the lots bearing  the numbers 7, 8, 9, 31, 32, 35, and S6, all located on a small peninsula in the Tondo District between  Estero Vitas and the  Manila Bay.  The Philippine Manufacturing Company, by virtue of a registration effected many years ago, holds Torrens certificates of title to lots Nos. 31, 32, and 35.  By  what appears to have been a mistake  in the cadastral plan lot No. 35 was  made to include some land not really adjudicated to said company in the former registration proceeding.   The peninsula referred to appears to be gaining  land on its west side from the sea, and this  process, even since the date of the survey upon which the  cadastral plan was based, has  resulted in the  making of a new strip  on the west side of said peninsula  containing an area of about three hectares.  This strip is immediately contiguous to lots Nos. 7, 8, 9, 36, and  35, as the latter was  originally  laid down in the cadastral plan.  As the  Philippine Manufacturing  Company claims the whole  of lot No. 35 it results that the new strip is contiguous  to land claimed   by said  company in the cadastral proceeding.

Upon the initiation of the cadastral proceeding publication was duly made as required by law with respect to all land included in the plan, but of course the new strip was not included therein as it has been made since the survey. The cadastral case was originally  set for  hearing on December 14, 1922, but the date of the hearing was extended by the court to January 16, 1923, when an order of general default was entered as to all unclaimed lots not covered by Torrens titles.  Shortly prior  to the last mentioned date the  court  entered a  partial decision  declaring  that  lots Nos. 31, 32, and 35 had already been decreed in case No. 8425 and that these lots appeared in the cadastral plan in the name of the Philippine Manufacturing Company.  With respect to  lots thus  previously registered it was ordered that, upon  presentation of the  existing certificates of title, the necessary orders of cancellation  should be entered and new certificates issued in lieu of the surrendered certificates showing the same limits as the former  certificates but in harmony with the descriptions of the cadastral survey.

On April 17, 1925, the attorneys for the Cabañgis respondents, who will hereafter be referred  to  as the Cabañgis heirs, filed a petition in the cadastral proceeding in which they asserted ownership to the strip of newly made land lying  on  the. shore of the Manila  Bay contiguous to and  west  of some of  the lots already specified.  In  this petition they informed the  court that  said land  had not been included in the cadastral plan and requested that the cadastral plan be amended so as to make this land appear in the plan, to the end that  it might be adjudicated to them.  Pursuant to this  petition the  court  ordered the Bureau of Lands to amend the cadastral plan so as  to include the strip in question.  In compliance" with said order the Bureau of Lands  amended its  plan and added to it the questioned lot, indicated  as lot No. 40.  The actual survey of this lot had been made at the instance of the Cabañgis heirs, and without  any previous notice of the survey to  the Philippine Manufacturing  Company.  No notice of the aforementioned survey or  of the inclusion of lot No. 40 in the cadastral plan was published in the Official Gazette.  Subsequent  to the amendment of the  cadastral plan in the manner above stated the respondent judge, on July 16,  1925,  adjudicated and decreed  lot  No. 40 to the Cabañgis heirs. More than thirty days thereafter an attorney for the Philippine Manufacturing Company for the first time  learned of  the adjudication  of this lot  to the Cabangis heirs.   As the time for an appeal had passed and the court had lost jurisdiction to  change the decree, the present petition was filed for relief in this court.

The claim of the Philippine  Manufacturing Company to lot  No. 40 appears  to be based, first,  upon an assertion of private  ownership in itself by accretion or reclamation; and, secondly, upon rights acquired by it  under a lease granted by the Government.   In behalf of the Government it is insisted that the land in question  is foreshore land.

Upon consideration  of the facts  above stated it is quite obvious that the respondent judge had no jurisdiction whatever over  lot No. 40  in the  cadastral  case now pending before him and  the adjudication of  said lot to the Cabañgis heirs by the decision of July 16,1925, is  a mere nullity.

From the agreed statement it is obvious that no publication has ever been made  except  the initial  publication, and this did  not include lot No. 40.  Publication of course is, one of the essential  bases of the jurisdiction of the court in land registration and cadastral cases, and the attempt that was here made to incorporate lot No. 40 into the cadastral was futile.  Before a  cadastral survey can be amended so as to include land in which no publication has been made, new publication is necessary, a step essential to the protection of persons  interested in  the property which is intended to be included.  But even if the order amending the cadastral plan had not been wholly void, the facts above revealed would justify the granting of a new trial by this court  under  section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, in view of want of publication, it is only necessary here to pronounce the order of July 16, 1925, void, and a new trial is not called for.

The petition is therefore granted,  the order of July 16, 1925, is set  aside, and  the registration of  lot No. 40 in the name of the Cabañgis heirs is abrogated. The owner's duplicate certificate, attached as Exhibit 6 (c) to this proceeding, shall be surrendered to the  register  of deeds of Manila for filing and the word "cancelled" stamped upon it as well as upon the original certificate in the office of the register.   The final decree by virtue of which the certificate of title was issued shall be marked  "revoked," both in the General Land Registration Office and in  the office of the register of  deeds.  The  costs  of  this  proceeding will be paid by the Cabañgis heirs.

Avanceña,  C.  J., Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.