G.R. No.

L-38962 September 15, 1986

IN RE: MOTION TO CORRECT ORIGINAL CERTIICATE O
TITLE NO. !-6"2 CO#ERING LOT NO. $569 CA%A&AN
CA'. RANCISCA SOTO petitioner-appellant, vs.MARINA S.
(ARENO, (OSEINA S. ME'EL )*+ LILIA S.
ALILAIN, oppositors-appellees.
Orlando N. Cuachon for petitioner-appellant.chanrobles virtual law library
Serafin Diego for oppositors-appellees.
CR%,, J.:
Originally elevated to the Court of Appeals, this case has been
referred to us because it raises the following (and only)
question of law: chanrobles virtual law library
oes the trial court have !urisdiction to order an a"end"ent
of a certificate of title without previous e#haustion of
ad"inistrative re"edies$ chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
%pecifically, the change sought is in the civil status of the
registered owner, who" the petitioner wants to be described in
the certificate of title as "arried to her rather than as a
widower.
1
chanrobles virtual law library
&he said registered owner was %ergio %erfino, who was
"arried in 'anuary ()** to the petitioner.
2
+n ()*), he filed
an application for a ho"estead patent, describing hi"self as
,"arried to -rancisca %oto,,
3
but in ().*, when the original
certificate over the ho"estead was issued, it was in favor of
,%ergio %erfino, widower,,
$
%erfino died in ()/.,
5
and soon
thereafter the petitioner filed a "otion with the Court of -irst
instance of 0egros Occidental praying that his description as a
,widower, be changed to ,"arried to -rancisca %oto.,
6
&wo
daughters of the couple opposed the "otion.
"
chanrobles virtual law library
1hile conceding that their parents were "arried in ()**, the
oppositors nonetheless pointed out that their "other had
abandoned the" in ()23 to live with another "an. 4ater, they
said, she had adulterous relations with still a second "an by
who" she begot eleven children. According to these
oppositors, it was their father hi"self who had described
hi"self as a widower in ().* because he had not heard fro"
the petitioner since ()23.
8
chanrobles virtual law library
&heir purpose, obviously, was to prevent the land fro" being
considered con!ugal and therefore equally owned by the
spouses.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
&he trial court originally granted the "otion and ordered the
change prayed for, but later it reconsidered its decision and
held itself without !urisdiction to act on the "atter. +ts reason
was that there was no observance of the doctrine of
e#haustion of ad"inistrative re"edies.
9
chanrobles virtual law library
-ailure to observe the doctrine of e#haustion of ad"inistrative
re"edies does not affect the !urisdiction of the court. 1e have
repeatedly stressed this in a long line of decisions. &he only
effect of non-co"pliance with this rule is that it will deprive the
co"plainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a
"otion to dis"iss. +f not invo5ed at the proper ti"e, this
ground is dee"ed waived and the court can then ta5e
cogni6ance of the case and try it.
1-
chanrobles virtual law library
7oreover, the doctrine of e#haustion of ad"inistrative
re"edies is not applicable to private lands, as also settled in a
nu"ber of decisions rendered by this Court.
11
Once
registered, the ho"estead granted to %ergio %erfino ceased to
have the character of public land and so was re"oved fro" the
operation of the said doctrine.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
8ut notwithstanding the above principles, the petition will still
have to be dis"issed because the change sought is not
authori6ed under %ection ((3 of Act 2)/, as interpreted by this
Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
According to Tangunan v. Republic,
12
the a"end"ent of a
certificate of title is allowed under this section only ,if there is
unani"ity a"ong the parties, or there is no adverse clai" or
serious ob!ection on the part of any party in interest9
otherwise, the case beco"es controversial and should be
threshed out in an ordinary case or in the case where the
incident properly belongs.,chanrobles virtual law library
+n another case, it was held that ,it is not proper to cancel an
original certificate of &orrens title issued e#clusively in the
na"e of a deceased person, and to issue a new certificate in
the na"e of his heirs, under the provisions of %ection ((3 of
Act 2)/, when the surviving spouse clai"s right of ownership
over the land covered by such
certificate.,
13
chanrobles virtual law library
+t is obvious that in as5ing for the a"end"ent of the
certificate of title issued e#clusively in the na"e of %ergio
%erfino, the petitioner was see5ing to reserve the title to one
half of the sub!ect land as her con!ugal share. Appellees, for
their part, re!ect this clai". Clearly, therefore, %ection ((3 of
Act 2)/ is not applicable in this case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
&he proper procedure is to institute the intestate proceedings
of the %ergio %erfino, where the appellant "ay file against its
ad"inistrator the corresponding ordinary action to clai" her
alleged rights over the lot in question.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
1:;<;-O<;, this appeal is dis"issed, with costs against the
appellant. +t is so ordered.
ap !Chair"an#, Narvasa, $elencio-%errera and &eliciano, ''.,
concur.