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.
United States v. Greg Harris, Angelo Vagas, Vernon Copeland, Fredel Williamson, AKA Fred Williamson, Michael D. Griggs, Cross-Appellee. United States of America v. Warren Ford AKA Bo, 20 F.3d 445, 11th Cir. (1994)