IN RE: MOTION TO CORRECT ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. P-672 COVERING LOT NO. 4569 CAUAYAN CAD. FRANCISCA SOTO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. MARINA S. JARENO, JOSEFINA S. MEDEL…

Soto versus Jareno

The Case

This is a petition filed by Francisca Soto against Marina S. Jareno, Josefina S. Medel, and the other children of her late husband, Sergio Serfino. The petitioner asks that the original certificate of title covering a homestead lot, issued exclusively in her husband's name and describing him as a widower, be amended to describe him instead as married to her. The children oppose the change because they fear it would make the land conjugal and therefore equally owned by the spouses. The case matters because it settles two things every reviewee must know: that failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not deprive a court of jurisdiction, and that Section 112 of Act 496, the old Torrens system law, is not the proper vehicle for an amendment that is seriously contested.

Procedural History

After Sergio Serfino died in 1965, the petitioner filed a motion with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental praying that his description as a widower in the certificate of title be changed to married to Francisca Soto. Two daughters of the couple opposed the motion. The trial court at first granted the motion and ordered the change prayed for. It later reconsidered its decision and held itself without jurisdiction to act, on the ground that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies had not been observed. The case was originally elevated to the Court of Appeals, which referred it to the Supreme Court because it raised only a question of law, namely whether the trial court had jurisdiction to order the amendment without previous exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Facts

Sergio Serfino married the petitioner, Francisca Soto, in January 1933. In 1939 he filed an application for a homestead patent, describing himself as married to Francisca Soto. In 1953, however, when the original certificate over the homestead was issued, it was in favor of Sergio Serfino, widower.

Serfino died in 1965, and soon thereafter the petitioner filed her motion to correct the description of his civil status in the certificate. The couple's daughters opposed. They conceded that their parents were married in 1933, but pointed out that their mother had abandoned them in 1942 to live with another man, and later had adulterous relations with a second man by whom she begot eleven children. According to the oppositors, their father himself described himself as a widower in 1953 because he had not heard from the petitioner since 1942.

The purpose of the opposition was plainly to prevent the land from being considered conjugal and therefore equally owned by the spouses. The trial court first granted the motion, then reconsidered and held itself without jurisdiction for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to order an amendment of a certificate of title without previous exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Whether or not the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to registered private land that was originally public land granted as a homestead.
• Whether or not the change sought is authorized under Section 112 of Act 496.

Applicable Provisions

Section 112 of Act 496, the Land Registration Act, provides:

Section 112. Amendment and alteration of certificates. No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same by the clerk or any register of deeds, except by order of the court. A registered owner or other person in interest may apply by petition to the court, upon the ground that registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; or that any error, omission, or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or on any duplicate certificate; or that the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; or that the registered owner has married, or if registered as married, that the marriage has been terminated and the parties thereto have been divorced; or that a corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security if necessary, as it may deem proper. This section shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of the court in a registration case, or to alter or modify the judgment or decree of the court in a registration case, or to alter or modify the said decree, except only to correct mistakes or errors in the entry of the certificate or in the copy of the certificate, or in the description of the land.

This is the provision under which the petitioner sought the correction, and the Court holds that it does not authorize the change she asks for because the matter is seriously contested.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. The only effect of non-compliance is to deprive 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 may take cognizance of the case and try it.

On the second issue, the Court holds that the doctrine does not apply to private lands. Once registered, the homestead granted to Sergio Serfino ceased to have the character of public land and was removed from the operation of the doctrine.

On the third issue, however, the Court holds that the change sought is not authorized under Section 112 of Act 496, as interpreted by the Court. The amendment of a certificate of title is allowed under that section 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. It is also 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 Section 112, when the surviving spouse claims right of ownership over the land covered by the certificate. Here, in asking for the amendment, the petitioner was seeking to reserve the title to one half of the land as her conjugal share, and the appellees rejected that claim. Clearly, therefore, Section 112 is not applicable.

Doctrine

First, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional. Non-compliance merely deprives the complainant of a cause of action, which must be raised in a timely motion to dismiss or is deemed waived.

Second, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply to private lands. Once a homestead is registered, it ceases to be public land.

Third, under Section 112 of Act 496, amendment of a certificate of title is proper only where there is unanimity among the parties, or no adverse claim or serious objection from any party in interest. Where the change is seriously contested, as when a surviving spouse seeks to reserve a conjugal share, the controversy must be threshed out in an ordinary case, or in the settlement proceedings where the incident properly belongs.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed, with costs against the appellant, and the petitioner was directed to institute the intestate proceedings of Sergio Serfino, where she may file the corresponding ordinary action to claim her alleged rights over the lot.

Remember This

Memorize this line: exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional, but Section 112 of Act 496 cannot be used to amend a certificate of title over a serious objection. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between jurisdiction and cause of action, and the limits of the summary remedy for correcting certificates of title.