CLARA C. DE LA CRUZ and CLAUDIA C. MANADONG vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ROSARIO OPANA G.R. No. 127593.

September 30, 2003 PONENTE: CARPIO-MORALES, J. FACTS: Esteban, Andrea and Tomasa, all surnamed Cabsag, were siblings and are now all deceased. Esteban is survived by his daughters-herein petitioners Clara C. de la Cruz and Claudia C. Manadong who have since 1972 been residing in Manila, while Andrea is survived by her children. Tomasa, who died in 1963 without issue, was survived by her husband Eugenio Nadonga who later married respondent Rosario Opana. Eugenio Nadonga died in 1973. Upon the death of Tomasa in 1963, her husband Eugenio Nadonga continued to live in Guiuan and occupy the lands in question until his death in 1973 upon which his second wife-herein respondent continued peaceful possession thereof until April 24, 1992 when Estebans daughters-herein petitioners filed a complaint for partition against her before the RTC of Guiuan where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 765, now the subject of the present petition. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is the true, absolute and exclusive owner of the two (2) parcels of land described in the complaint. HELD: First. Contrary to the assertion of petitioners, since the defendant-herein respondent alleged exclusive ownership, the action for partition, which assumes that the parties are co-owners, had, as correctly held by the trial court, it citing Rodriguez v. Ravilan,[33] become one for recovery of property. Petitioners harp on Tax Declaration No. 29824 covering the property in Mayana, but the boundaries set forth therein do not jibe with those of the property in Mayana in the possession of and registered in the name of respondent. Xxx Petitioners failed to come up with a clear description of the land sought or claimed. On that score alone, their case fails. Second. The late Eugenio Nadonga disposed of the questioned two parcels of land to respondent during his lifetime by a duly notarized Deed of Donation dated June 4, 1965, the pertinent portions of which are reproduced below, quoted verbatim: xxx A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It enjoys the presumption of validity.To overcome it, the evidence must be so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all reasonable controversy as to its falsity. Petitioners, however, proffered no such evidence.

Third. Assuming arguendo that the questioned lands were paraphernal properties of Tomasa Cabsag, they have, however, been registered in 1974 under OCT No. 8859 with respect to the property in Mayana and OCT No. 8860 with respect to the property in Surok. The rule is settled that a land registration case is an action in rem and is binding on the whole world, including petitioners. Fourth. The deed of donation aside, respondent has not only proven actual continuous possession of the questioned properties for decades; she has presented tax receipts and declarations covering them. Tax receipts and declarations are prima facie proofs of ownership or possession of the property for which such taxes have been paid. Coupled with proof of actual possession of the property, they may become the basis of a claim for ownership. At all events, petitioners filing of the action only in 1992 or after a lapse of several years despite, not only their knowledge of Eugenio Nadongas and respondents continuous possession of the properties, but also the registration thereof in respondents name demonstrates laches which this Court cannot tolerate.

HEIRS OF MARCELINA ARZADON-CRISOLOGO, represented by Leticia C. del Rosario, MAURICIA ARZADON and BERNARDO ARZADON vs AGRIFINA RAON, substituted by SUZIMA RAONDUTERTE and OTHELO RAON G.R. No. 171068 September 5, 2007

PONENTE: CHICO-NAZARIO, J. FACTS: Agrifina Raon filed a Complaint against spouses Conrado and Mila Montemayor with the MCTC of Badoc, Ilocos Norte, claiming ownership over an unregistered residential lot (subject property) situated at Brgy. No. 2 Badoc, Ilocos Norte, covered by Tax Declaration No. 420809. Agrifina Raon alleged that her family had enjoyed continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession and ownership over the subject property since 1962, and had religiously paid the taxes thereon. They had built a house on the subject property where she and her family had resided. Unfortunately when her family was already residing in Metro Manila, fire razed and destroyed the said house. Nonetheless, they continued to visit the subject property, as well as pay the real estate taxes thereon. Her daughter, Zosie Raon, discovered that the subject property was already in the name of the spouses Montemayor under Tax Declaration No. 0010563 which was purportedly issued in their favor by virtue of an Affidavit of Ownership and Possession which the spouses Montemayor executed themselves. The Affidavit was alleged to have created a cloud of doubt over Raons title and ownership over the subject property. ISSUE:Whether or not respondents had validly established their claim of ownership over the subject property through acquisitive prescription. HELD: The open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession by respondents of the subject property for a period of more than 30 years in repudiation of petitioners ownership had been established. During such length of time, respondents had exercised acts of dominion over the subject property, and paid taxes in their name. Jurisprudence is clear that although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. As is well known, the payment of taxes coupled with actual possession of the land covered by the tax declaration strongly supports a claim of ownership. The Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the factual findings of the RTC that respondents had validly established their claim of ownership over the subject property through acquisitive prescription.

THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. L-45061 November 20, 1989

PONENTE: FERNAN, C.J. FACTS: Petitioner Director of Lands interposes the instant appeal by certiorari from the resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 42292-R entitled "Arturo Rodriguez, et al., applicants-appellees versus the Director of Lands, oppositor-appellant" decreeing the confirmation of title of the applicantsappellees under Republic Act No. 496 in relation to Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, over an area identified as Lot No. 1736, Cadastral Survey of Orion, Bataan. Said Lot No. 1736 is a large tract of agricultural land situated in Barrio Kapok, Orion, Bataan, containing 233.6883 hectares, alleged to have been occupied since 1913 by the grandfather of applicant Arturo Rodriguez, the late Vicente Rodriguez, who, during his lifetime filed Lease Application No. 1206 with the Bureau of Lands, but which application was rejected upon investigation and ascertainment that the land was classified as within the U.S. Military Reservation (Mariveles) under Executive Order of the President of the United States of America, embodied in Proclamation No. 10 of the Governor-General of the Philippines . Upon the death of Vicente Rodriguez , possession of the property was taken over by his sons, Victorino Rodriguez (the father of applicant Arturo Rodriguez) and Pablo Rodriguez. Subsequently in an instrument of quitclaim, both Victorino and Pablo Rodriguez waived their rights as heirs of the late Vicente Rodriguez over the subject property ceding all their participation, ownership and possession thereon in favor of Arturo Rodriguez. Arturo Rodriguez sold two-thirds (2/3) undivided portion of the land to Guillermo Reyes and Francisco S. Alcantara. The land in question was deemed reverted to the public domain as it was excluded from the USPhilippine Military Bases Agreement. Arturo Rodriguez together with Guillermo Reyes and Francisco S. Alcantara filed a verified petition for registration of their title to Lot No. 1736 of the Cadastral Survey of Orion, Bataan under Act No. 496 alleging that they, by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and adverse possession thereof in the concept of owners for more than thirty (30) years immediately preceding the filing of their application. Applicant Francisco Alcantara subsequently withdrew his application by motion. The remaining applicants, Arturo Rodriguez and Guillermo Reyes, filed an amended application incorporating an allegation that the heirs of Vicente Rodriguez, the original possessor of Lot No. 1736, namely Victorino Rodriguez and Pablo Rodriguez, had relinquished their rights and participation in Lot 1736 in favor of Arturo Rodriguez.

Thirty-nine (39) persons headed by Rosauro Canaria filed their Opposition to the petition for registration contending, among others, that they have been in actual, peaceful, adverse and continuous possession of portions of Lot No. 1736 for more than thirty (30) years and have introduced improvements thereon consisting of fruit-bearing trees; that the applicants have never been in possession of the property; and that applicant Arturo Rodriguez could not have inherited the land from his grandfather, because the children of Vicente Rodriguez are still living. The Director of Lands likewise filed his opposition alleging that neither the applicants nor their predecessors-in-interest possess sufficient title to the land applied for, as they have not been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land sought to be registered for at least thirty (30) years immediately preceding the filing of the application. Oppositors Rosauro Canaria, et al., filed a motion to dismiss the petition for registration stating that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment. ISSUE: Whether or not the lot in question as a public land does not constitute res judicata. HELD: Petitioner's main contention in elevating the case to this Court is that the case of Mindanao relied upon by the appellate court in reversing its original decision is not applicable to the case at bar the basic and fundamental distinction resting on the fact that the declaration of the land in question as public land in said case was made in ordinary land registration proceedings which was a voluntary application commenced by a private party under Act 496, whereas in this case, the land in question was declared public land in compulsory cadastral proceedings initiated by the government under the Cadastral Act. 5 Petitioner consequently cites the case of Navarro vs. Director of Lands, 6 as the more appropriate and applicable decision wherein it was ruled that where the parcels of land sought to be registered are the same lots already declared public lands in a cadastral proceedings where the applicant and the Director of Lands were parties, and the applicant failed to show acquisition of the lands by any of the legal modes of acquiring public lands, the decision declaring the lots part of the public domain must be deemed res judicata. We grant the petition but not on the principle of res judicata invoked by petitioner. Admittedly, the land in question had been declared public land in a decision rendered by the cadastral court in Cadastral Case No. 15, Record No. 1021. Factually, however, there is no prior final judgment at all to speak of because, as we explained in the case of Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 7 a decision in a cadastral proceedings declaring a lot public land is not the final decree contemplated in Sections 38 and 40 of the Land Registration Act. Thus, a judicial declaration that a parcel of land is public, does not preclude the same applicant from subsequently seeking a judicial confirmation of his title to the same land, provided he thereafter complies with the provisions of Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, and as long as said public land remains alienable and disposable xxx