Soto vs. Jareno

Summary amendment of a certificate of title under Section 112 of Act 496 is allowed only upon unanimity or absence of adverse claim or serious objection; a controverted change affecting ownership must be litigated in an ordinary action. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not defeat jurisdiction, and the doctrine does not apply to registered private land, but the petition still failed for lack of unanimity.

Sergio Serfino was the homestead patentee and registered owner of Lot No. 4569, Cauayan Cad., covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-672. Francisca Soto claimed to be his wife since January 1933, while Marina S. Jareno and her co-oppositors were daughters of the couple asserting exclusive ownership in their deceased father. Section 112 of Act 496 permits summary amendment or alteration of a certificate of title under limited, non-controversial circumstances.

Sergio Serfino married Francisca Soto in January 1933. In 1939 he filed an application for a homestead patent in which he described himself as married to Francisca Soto. When the original certificate over the homestead was issued in 1953, however, it was issued in favor of Sergio Serfino, widower, covering Lot No. 4569, Cauayan Cad. under Original Certificate of Title No. P-672.

Serfino died in 1965. Soon thereafter Soto filed a motion with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental praying that his description as widower be changed to married to Francisca Soto.

Two daughters of the couple, Marina S. Jareno, Josefina S. Medel and Lilia S. Alilain as oppositors, opposed the motion. While conceding that their parents were married in 1933, they alleged that their mother had abandoned the family in 1942 to live with another man, later had adulterous relations with still a second man by whom she begot eleven children, and that their father had described himself as a widower in 1953 because he had not heard from petitioner since 1942. Their purpose, as found in the decision, was to prevent the land from being considered conjugal and therefore equally owned by the spouses.

The trial court at first granted the motion and ordered the correction prayed for. On reconsideration, it reversed itself and disclaimed jurisdiction on the ground that administrative remedies had not been exhausted.

• Abandonment and Adverse Ownership Claim: Respondents conceded the 1933 marriage but countered that petitioner abandoned the family in 1942 to live with another man and later begot eleven children by a second man, and that Serfino called himself a widower in 1953 because he had not heard from petitioner since 1942, thus rejecting that the land was conjugal and equally owned by the spouses.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to order amendment of a certificate of title without previous exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Amendment Under Section 112: Whether the change in civil status from widower to married to Francisca Soto is authorized under Section 112 of Act 496 where there is an adverse claim by heirs affecting conjugal ownership.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Yes. Non-observance does not affect jurisdiction but only deprives complainant of a cause of action, waivable if not timely invoked; moreover the doctrine is inapplicable to registered private land.
• Amendment Under Section 112: No. The amendment was properly denied because unanimity was absent and a serious objection existed, making the matter controversial and requiring an ordinary action, not summary relief.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Failure to observe exhaustion does not affect jurisdiction, as repeatedly stressed in a long line of decisions. Its only effect is deprivation of a cause of action, a ground for motion to dismiss deemed waived if not invoked at the proper time, after which the court may take cognizance and try the case. The doctrine was additionally inapplicable because once registered, the homestead granted to Serfino ceased to have the character of public land and was removed from its operation.
• Amendment Under Section 112: The change sought was not authorized under Section 112 of Act 496 as interpreted by the Court. Amendment is allowed only if there is unanimity among the parties or no adverse claim or serious objection; otherwise the case becomes controversial and should be threshed out in an ordinary case or where the incident properly belongs. Here petitioner sought to reserve one-half of the land as her conjugal share while appellees rejected the claim, and title stood exclusively in the deceased Serfino's name, so summary cancellation and reissuance in favor of heirs or recognition of spousal ownership was improper. The proper procedure was intestate proceedings for Serfino wherein appellant could file the corresponding ordinary action against the administrator to claim her alleged rights.

• Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect jurisdiction — Non-compliance merely deprives the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss; if not invoked at the proper time, the ground is deemed waived and the court can take cognizance and try the case. Applied to reject the trial court's reconsidered conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction over the correction motion.
• Exhaustion of administrative remedies is inapplicable to private lands — Once a homestead is registered, it ceases to have the character of public land and is removed from the operation of the doctrine. Applied to hold the doctrine doubly inapplicable to Original Certificate of Title No. P-672.
• Summary amendment under Section 112 of Act 496 requires unanimity and absence of controversy — Amendment is allowed only if there is unanimity among the parties, or there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest; otherwise the case becomes controversial and should be threshed out in an ordinary case or in the case where the incident properly belongs. Applied to deny correction of widower to married where daughters seriously opposed the conjugal claim, following Tangunan vs. Republic.
• No summary transfer from deceased registered owner where surviving spouse claims ownership — It is not proper to cancel an original Torrens certificate issued exclusively in a deceased person's name and issue a new certificate in the heirs' names under Section 112 of Act 496 when the surviving spouse claims ownership over the covered land. Applied to require intestate proceedings and an ordinary action against the administrator instead of a Section 112 motion, following Jimenez vs. De Castro.

• "Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court." — States the controlling jurisdictional rule that non-exhaustion is not a jurisdictional defect.
• "The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss." — Defines the limited consequence of non-exhaustion and its waivability if not timely invoked.
• "if there is unanimity among the parties, or there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest; otherwise, the case becomes controversial and should be threshed out in an ordinary case or in the case where the incident properly belongs." — Gives the canonical limitation on Section 112 summary amendment relied upon to dismiss the petition.
• "it is not proper to cancel an original certificate of Torrens title issued exclusively in the name of a deceased person, and to issue a new certificate in the name of his heirs, under the provisions of Section 112 of Act 496, when the surviving spouse claims right of ownership over the land covered by such certificate." — States the specific prohibition applied where the correction would determine disputed conjugal ownership.

• Tangunan vs. Republic, 94 Phil. 171 — Followed as authority that Section 112 amendment requires unanimity or absence of adverse claim or serious objection, otherwise an ordinary action is required.
• Jimenez vs. De Castro, 67 Phil. 398 — Followed to hold summary cancellation and reissuance under Section 112 improper where a surviving spouse claims ownership against title exclusively in the deceased's name.
• C.N. Hodges vs. Municipal Board of Iloilo, G.R. No. L-18276, 19 SCRA 28; Municipality of La Trinidad, et al. vs. CFI of Baguio-Benguet, et al., L-33899, 123 SCRA 81; Pineda vs. CFI of Davao, 1 SCRA 1020, 1027; Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corp. vs. Mendoza, 2 SCRA 1064 — Cited as the long line holding that non-exhaustion does not affect jurisdiction but only a cause of action.
• Ramoso vs. Obligado, et al., 70 Phil. 86; Pamintuan vs. San Agustin, 43 Phil. 558, 561; El Hogar Filipino vs. Olviga, 60 Phil. 17, 18 — Cited as settled authority that exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply to private lands.

• Section 112, Act 496 (Land Registration Act) — Governs summary amendment or alteration of a certificate of title; applied to deny the change from widower to married because adverse claims by the heirs rendered the petition controversial, requiring an ordinary action rather than a motion.
• Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies — Invoked by the trial court on reconsideration to disclaim jurisdiction; held inapplicable to defeat jurisdiction and inapplicable to registered homestead now constituting private land.

Yap (Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera and Feliciano, JJ., concur.