6/27/2014

Cequena vs Lirio : 137944 : April 6, 2000 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

THIRDDIVISION
[G.R.No.137944.April6,2000]

FERNANDAMENDOZACEQUENAandRUPERTAMENDOZALIRIO,petitioners,
vs.HONORATAMENDOZABOLANTE,respondent.Jlexj
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:
Taxreceiptsanddeclarationsareprimafacieproofsofownershiporpossessionoftheproperty
forwhichsuchtaxeshavebeenpaid.Coupledwithproofofactualpossessionoftheproperty,
theymaybecomethebasisofaclaimforownership.Byacquisitiveprescription,possessionin
theconceptofownerpublic,adverse,peacefulanduninterruptedmaybeconvertedto
ownership.Ontheotherhand,merepossessionandoccupationoflandcannotripeninto
ownership.
TheCase
BeforeusisaPetitionforReviewonCertiorarioftheMarch19,1999Decision[1]oftheCourtof
Appeals[2](CA)inCAGRCVNo.43423.TheassailedDecisiondisposedasfollows:[3]
"WHEREFORE,foralltheforegoing,thedecisionofthetrialcourtappealedfrom
isREVERSEDandSETASIDE.Inlieuthereof,judgmentisherebyrendered
declaringxxxHonorataMendozaBolantetherightfulownerandpossessorofthe
parceloflandwhichisthesubjectofthisappeal."Lexjuris
TheFacts
ThePetitionhereinreferstoaparceloflandsituatedinBarangayBangad,Binangonan,
ProvinceofRizal,havinganareaof1,728squaremetersandcoveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.
260027.
TheundisputedantecedentsofthiscasearenarratedbytheCourtofAppealsasfollows:[4]
"Thefactsnotdisputedrevealedthatpriorto1954,thelandwasoriginally
declaredfortaxationpurposesinthenameofSinforosoMendoza,fatherof
[respondent]andmarriedtoEduardaApiado.Sinforosodiedin1930.[Petitioners]
werethedaughtersofMargaritoMendoza.Onthebasisofanaffidavit,thetax
declarationinthenameofSinforosoMendozaofthecontestedlotwascancelled
andsubsequentlydeclaredinthenameofMargaritoMendoza.Margaritoand
Sinforosoarebrothers.[Respondent]isthepresentoccupantoftheland.Earlier,
onOctober15,1975,[respondent]andMiguelMendoza,anotherbrotherof
[petitioners],duringthecadastralsurveyhadadisputeon[the]ownershipofthe
land.Jurismis
"Duringthepretrialconference,partiesstipulatedthefollowingfacts:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137944.html

1/7

6/27/2014

Cequena vs Lirio : 137944 : April 6, 2000 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

1)Thelandsubjectofthecasewasformerlydeclaredfortaxationpurposesin
thenameofSinforosoMendozapriorto1954butisnowdeclaredinthenameof
MargaritoMendoza.
2)Thepartiesagree[d]astotheidentityofthelandsubjectofinstantcase.
3)[Petitioners]arethedaughtersofMargaritoMendozawhilethe[respondent]
istheonlydaughterofSinforosoMendoza.
'4)MargaritoMendozaandSinforosoMendoza[were]brothers,nowdeceased.
5)DuringthecadastralsurveyofthepropertyonOctober15,1979therewas
alreadyadisputebetweenHonorataM.BolanteandMiguelMendoza,brotherof
[petitioners].
6)[Respondentwas]occupyingthepropertyinquestion.
Theonlyissueinvolved[was]who[was]thelawfulownerand
possessorofthelandsubjectofthecase.
"Aftertrial,thecourtaquorendereditsjudgmentinfavorof[petitioners],the
dispositiveportionofwhichreadsasfollows:
Wherefore,inviewoftheforegoingconsiderations,judgmentis
herebyrenderedforthe[petitioners]andagainstthe[respondent]:
1.DeclaringthattheparceloflandsituatedinBangad,Binangonan,Rizal
coveredbytaxdeclarationno.260027inthenameofMargaritoMendozabelong
tohisheirs,the[petitioners]herein
2.Ordering[respondent]tovacatethepropertysubjectofthecaseanddeliver
possessionthereoftotheheirsofMargaritoMendoza.Jjjuris
3.Orderingthe[respondent]toindemnifythe[petitioners]inthesumof
P10,000.00,asactualdamages.
4.Orderingthe[respondent]topaythecosts."
RulingoftheCourtofAppeals
TheCourtofAppealsreversedthetrialcourtbecausethegenuinenessandthedueexecutionof
theaffidavitallegedlysignedbytherespondentandhermotherhadnotbeensufficiently
established.Thenotarypublicoranyoneelsewhohadwitnessedtheexecutionoftheaffidavit
wasnotpresented.Noexperttestimonyorcompetentwitnesseverattestedtothegenuineness
ofthequestionedsignatures.
TheCAfurtherruledthattheaffidavitwasinsufficienttoovercomethedenialofrespondentand
hermother.Theformertestifiedthatthelatter,neverhavingattendedschool,couldneitherread
norwrite.Respondentalsosaidthatshehadneverbeencalled"Leonor,"whichwashowshe
wasreferredtointheaffidavit.
Moreover,theappellatecourtheldthattheprobativevalueofpetitionerstaxreceiptsand
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137944.html

2/7

6/27/2014

Cequena vs Lirio : 137944 : April 6, 2000 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

declarationspaledincomparisonwithrespondentsproofofownershipofthedisputedparcel.
Actual,physical,exclusiveandcontinuouspossessionbyrespondentsince1985indeedgave
herabettertitleunderArticle538oftheCivilCode.lex
Hence,thisPetition.[5]
Issues
Insistingthattheyaretherightfulownersofthedisputedland,thepetitionersallegethattheCA
committedthesereversibleerrors:[6]
"1.xxx[I]nnotconsideringtheaffidavitasanexceptiontothegeneralrulethatan
affidavitisclassifiedashearsayevidence,unlesstheaffiantisplacedonthe
witnessstandandJksm
"2.xxx[I]nholdingthatrespondenthasbeeninactualandphysicalpossession,
coupledwithxxxexclusiveandcontinuouspossessionofthelandsince1985,
whichareevidenceofthebestkindofcircumstanceprovingtheclaimofthetitleof
ownershipandenjoysthepresumptionofpreferredpossessor."
TheCourt'sRuling
ThePetitionhasnomerit.
FirstIssue:AdmissibilityoftheAffidavit
PetitionersdisputetheCA'srulingthattheaffidavitwasnotthebestevidenceoftheirfather's
ownershipofthedisputedland,becausethe"affiantwasnotplacedonthewitnessstand."They
contendthatitwasunnecessarytopresentawitnesstoestablishtheauthenticityoftheaffidavit
becauseitwasadeclarationagainstrespondent'sinterestandwasanancientdocument.Asa
declarationagainstinterest,itwasanexceptiontothehearsayrule.Asanecessaryand
trustworthydocument,itwasadmissibleinevidence.AndbecauseitwasexecutedonMarch24,
1953,itwasaselfauthenticatingancientdocument.Chief
Wequotebelowthepertinentportionoftheappellatecourt'sruling:[7]
"Whileitistruethattheaffidavitwassignedandsubscribedbeforeanotarypublic,
thegeneralruleisthataffidavitsareclassifiedashearsayevidence,unlessaffiants
areplacedonthewitnessstand(People'sBankandTrustCompanyvs.Leonidas,
207SCRA164).Affidavitsarenotconsideredthebestevidence,ifaffiantsare
availableaswitnesses(Vallartavs.CourtofAppeals,163SCRA587).Thedue
executionoftheaffidavitwasnotsufficientlyestablished.Thenotarypublicor
otherswhosawthatthedocumentwassignedoratleast[could]confirmitsrecitals
[were]notpresented.Therewasnoexperttestimonyorcompetentwitnesswho
attestedtothegenuinenessofthequestionedsignatures.Worse,[respondent]
deniedthegenuinenessofhersignatureandthatofhermotherxxx.[Respondent]
testifiedthathermotherwasanilliterateandasfarassheknewhermothercould
notwritebecauseshehadnotattendedschool(p.7,ibid).Hertestimonywas
corroboratedbyMa.SalesBolanteBasa,whosaidthe[respondent's]motherwas
illiterate."
Thepetitionersallegationsareuntenable.Beforeaprivatedocumentofferedasauthenticcan
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137944.html

3/7

6/27/2014

Cequena vs Lirio : 137944 : April 6, 2000 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

bereceivedinevidence,itsdueexecutionandauthenticitymustbeprovedfirst.[8]Andbeforea
documentisadmittedasanexceptiontothehearsayruleundertheDeadMan'sStatute,the
offerormustshow(a)thatthedeclarantisdead,insaneorunabletotestify(b)thatthe
declarationconcernsafactcognizablebythedeclarant(c)thatatthetimethedeclarationwas
made,hewasawarethatthesamewascontrarytohisinterestand(d)thatcircumstances
renderimprobabletheexistenceofanymotivetofalsify.[9]Esmsc
Inthiscase,oneoftheaffiantshappenstobetherespondent,whoisstillaliveandwhotestified
thatthesignatureintheaffidavitwasnothers.Adeclarationagainstinterestisnotadmissibleif
thedeclarantisavailabletotestifyasawitness.[10]Suchdeclarantshouldbeconfrontedwiththe
statementagainstinterestasapriorinconsistentstatement.
Theaffidavitcannotbeconsideredanancientdocumenteither.Anancientdocumentisonethat
is(1)morethan30yearsold,(2)foundinthepropercustody,and(3)unblemishedbyany
alterationorbyanycircumstanceofsuspicion.[11]Itmustonitsfaceappeartobegenuine.The
petitionershereinfailed,however,toexplainhowthepurportedsignatureofEduardaApiado
couldhavebeenaffixedtothesubjectaffidavitif,accordingtothewitness,shewasanilliterate
womanwhoneverhadanyformalschooling.Thiscircumstancecastssuspiciononits
authenticity.
Notallnotarizeddocumentsareexemptedfromtheruleonauthentication.Thus,anaffidavit
doesnotautomaticallybecomeapublicdocumentjustbecauseitcontainsanotarialjurat.
Furthermore,theaffidavitinquestiondoesnotstatehowtheownershipofthesubjectlandwas
transferredfromSinforosoMendozatoMargaritoMendoza.Byitself,anaffidavitisnotamodeof
acquiringownership.
SecondIssue:PreferenceofPossessionEsmmis
TheCAruledthattherespondentwasthepreferredpossessorunderArticle538oftheCivil
Codebecauseshewasinnotorious,actual,exclusiveandcontinuouspossessionoftheland
since1985.Petitionersdisputethisruling.Theycontendthatshecameintopossessionthrough
forceandviolence,contrarytoArticle536oftheCivilCode.
Weconcedethatdespitetheirdispossessionin1985,thepetitionersdidnotloselegal
possessionbecausepossessioncannotbeacquiredthroughforceorviolence.[12]Toallintents
andpurposes,apossessor,evenifphysicallyousted,isstilldeemedthelegalpossessor.[13]
Indeed,anyonewhocanprovepriorpossession,regardlessofitscharacter,mayrecoversuch
possession.[14]
However,possessionbythepetitionersdoesnotprevailoverthatoftherespondent.Possession
bytheformerbefore1985wasnotexclusive,asthelatteralsoacquireditbefore1985.The
recordsshowthatthepetitionersfatherandbrother,aswellastherespondentandhermother
weresimultaneouslyinadversepossessionoftheland.Esmso
Before1985,thesubjectlandwasoccupiedandcultivatedbytherespondent'sfather
(Sinforoso),whowasthebrotherofpetitioners'father(Margarito),asevidencedbyTax
DeclarationNo.26425.[15]WhenSinforosodiedin1930,Margaritotookpossessionoftheland
andcultivateditwithhissonMiguel.Atthesametime,respondentandhermothercontinued
residingonthelot.
Whenrespondentcameofagein1948,shepaidrealtytaxesfortheyears19321948.[16]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137944.html

4/7

6/27/2014

Cequena vs Lirio : 137944 : April 6, 2000 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

Margaritodeclaredthelotfortaxationinhisnamein1953[17]andpaiditsrealtytaxesbeginning
1952.[18]Whenhedied,Miguelcontinuedcultivatingtheland.AsfoundbytheCA,the
respondentandhermotherwerelivingontheland,whichwasbeingtilledbyMigueluntil1985
whenhewasphysicallyoustedbytherespondent.[19]
BasedonArticle538oftheCivilCode,therespondentisthepreferredpossessorbecause,
benefitingfromherfather'staxdeclarationofthesubjectlotsince1926,shehasbeenin
possessionthereofforalongerperiod.Ontheotherhand,petitioners'fatheracquiredjoint
possessiononlyin1952.Msesm
ThirdIssue:PossessionofBetterRight
Finally,thepetitionerschallengetheCArulingthat"actualandphysicalcoupledwiththe
exclusiveandcontinuouspossession[byrespondent]ofthelandsince1985"provedher
ownershipofthedisputedland.Therespondentarguesthatshewaslegallypresumedto
possessthesubjectlandwithajusttitlesinceshepossesseditintheconceptofowner.Under
Article541oftheCode,shecouldnotbeobligedtoshoworprovesuchtitle.
Therespondent'scontentionisuntenable.ThepresumptioninArticle541oftheCivilCodeis
merelydisputableitprevailsuntilthecontraryisproven.[20]Thatis,onewhoisdisturbedin
one'spossessionshall,underthisprovision,berestoredtheretobythemeansestablishedby
law.[21]Article538settlesonlythequestionofpossession,andpossessionisdifferentfrom
ownership.Ownershipinthiscaseshouldbeestablishedinoneofthewaysprovidedbylaw.E
xsm

Tosettletheissueofownership,weneedtodeterminewhobetweentheclaimantshasproven
acquisitiveprescription.[22]
Ownershipofimmovablepropertyisacquiredbyordinaryprescriptionthroughpossessionfor
tenyears.[23]Beingthesoleheirofherfather,respondentshowedthroughhistaxreceiptthat
shehadbeeninpossessionofthelandformorethantenyearssince1932.Whenherfather
diedin1930,shecontinuedtoresidetherewithhermother.Whenshegotmarried,sheandher
husbandengagedinkaingininsidethedisputedlotfortheirlivelihood.[24]
Respondent'spossessionwasnotdisturbeduntil1953whenthepetitioners'fatherclaimedthe
land.Butbythen,herpossession,whichwasintheconceptofownerpublic,peaceful,and
uninterrupted[25]hadalreadyripenedintoownership.Furthermoresheherself,afterherfather's
demise,declaredandpaidrealtytaxesforthedisputedland.Taxreceiptsanddeclarationsof
ownershipfortaxation,whencoupledwithproofofactualpossessionoftheproperty,canbethe
basisofaclaimforownershipthroughprescription.[26]Kyle
Incontrast,thepetitioners,despitethirtytwoyearsoffarmingthesubjectland,didnotacquire
ownership.Itissettledthatownershipcannotbeacquiredbymereoccupation.[27]Unless
coupledwiththeelementofhostilitytowardthetrueowner,[28]occupationanduse,however
long,willnotconfertitlebyprescriptionoradversepossession.Moreover,thepetitionerscannot
claimthattheirpossessionwaspublic,peacefulanduninterrupted.Althoughtheirfatherand
brotherarguablyacquiredownershipthroughextraordinaryprescriptionbecauseoftheir
adversepossessionforthirtytwoyears(19531985),[29]thissupposedownershipcannotextend
totheentiredisputedlot,butmustbelimitedtotheportionthattheyactuallyfarmed.
Wecannotsustainthepetitioners'contentionthattheirownershipofthedisputedlandwas
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137944.html

5/7

6/27/2014

Cequena vs Lirio : 137944 : April 6, 2000 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

establishedbeforethetrialcourtthroughtheseriesoftaxdeclarationsandreceiptsissuedinthe
nameofMargaritoMendoza.Suchdocumentsprovethattheholderhasaclaimoftitleoverthe
property.Asidefrommanifestingasinceredesiretoobtaintitlethereto,theyannouncethe
holder'sadverseclaimagainstthestateandotherinterestedparties.[30]Kycalr
However,taxdeclarationsandreceiptsarenotconclusiveevidenceofownership.[31]Atmost,
theyconstitutemereprimafacieproofofownershiporpossessionofthepropertyforwhichtaxes
havebeenpaid.[32]Intheabsenceofactualpublicandadversepossession,thedeclarationof
thelandfortaxpurposesdoesnotproveownership.[33]Insum,thepetitioners'claimof
ownershipofthewholeparcelhasnolegalbasis.
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDENIEDandtheassailedDecisionandResolutionAFFIRMED.
Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
Melo,(Chairman),Vitug,Purisima,andGonzagaReyes,JJ.,concur.Calrky

[1] Rollo,pp.3039.
[2] SeventhDivisioncomposedofJJMarianoM.Umali(ponente)FerminA.MartinJr.(Divisionchairman)andRomeoJ.

CallejoSr.(member),bothconcurring.
[3] CADecision,p.9rollo,p.38.
[4] CADecision,pp.25rollo,pp.3134.
[5] ThiscasewasdeemedsubmittedfordecisiononNovember29,1999,uponsimultaneousreceiptbythisCourtofthe
partiesMemoranda.PetitionersMemorandumwassignedbyAtty.RomeoM.Floreswhilethatofrespondentwassignedby
Attys.ArceliA.RubinandRogelF.Quijano.
[6] Petitioners'Memorandum,pp.56rollo,pp.8586.
[7] CADecision,p.5rollo,p.34.
[8] Rule132,Sec.20,RulesofCourt.
[9] Rule130,Sec.38,RulesofCourtFuentesJr.v.CourtofAppeals,253SCRA430,435,February9,1996Peoplev.
Bernal,274SCRA197,203,June19,1997.
[10] Lichaucov.Atlantic,Gulf&PacificCo.,84Phil.330,342,August23,1949.
[11] Rule132,Sec.21,RulesofCourtHeirsofSaludDizonSalamatv.Tamayo,298SCRA313,318,October30,1998and
HeirsofDemetriaLacsav.CourtofAppeals,197SCRA234,242,May20,1991.
[12] Art.536,CivilCodeBishopofLipav.MunicipalityofSanJose,27Phil.571,575,August29,1914.
[13] AyaladeRoxasv.Maglonso,8Phil.745,749,April27,1906.
[14] HeirsofPlacidoMirandav.CourtofAppeals,255SCRA368,379,March29,1996.
[15] Exhibit"1,"RTCRecords,p.94.
[16] Exhibit"2,"RTCRecords,p.95.
[17] Exh."D,"RTCRecords,p.77.PetitionersalsosubmittedTaxDeclarationNos.10410for1965,13481for1974,and26
0027for1985.RTCRecords,pp.7879&57.
[18] Exh."B17,"RTCRecords,p.75.RealPropertyTaxreceiptssubmittedbythepetitionerscoveredtheyears19531979.
RTCRecords,pp.5875.
[19] CADecision,p.8rollo,p.37.TSN,November13,1992,p.11.
[20] ArturoM.Tolentino,Commentaries&JurisprudenceontheCivilCodeofthePhilippines,Vol.II,1992ed.,p.284City
ofManilav.DelRosario,5Phil.227,231,November10,1905Chanv.CourtofAppeals,33SCRA737,745,June30,1970
andPerezv.Mendoza,65SCRA480,490,July25,1975.
[21] Art.539,CivilCode.
[22] Article540oftheCivilCodeprovides:"Onlythepossessionacquiredandenjoyedintheconceptofownercanserveasa
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137944.html

6/7

6/27/2014

Cequena vs Lirio : 137944 : April 6, 2000 : J. Panganiban : Third Division

titleforacquiringdominion."
[23] Art.1134,CivilCode.
[24] Comment,p.8rollo,p.53TSN,January4,1993,p.3.
[25] Art.1118,CivilCode.
[26] HeirsofMirandav.CA,supra,p.375.
[27] Art.714,CivilCode.
[28] CorporationdePP.Dominicosv.Lazaro,42Phil.119,122&126127,September10,1921.
[29] HiersofMirandav.CA,supra,p.368andHeirsofSegundaManingdingv.CourtofAppeals,276SCRA601,605,July
31,1997.
[30] Republicv.CourtofAppeals,258SCRA712,720,July12,1996.
[31] DirectorofLandsv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,195SCRA38,44,March11,1991.
[32] HeirsofVencilaoSr.v.CourtofAppeals,288SCRA574,581582,April1,1998Deiparinev.CourtofAppeals,299
SCRA668,675,December4,1998Titongv.CourtofAppeals,287SCRA102,115,March6,1998.
[33] DeLunav.CourtofAppeals,212SCRA276,280,August6,1992.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/137944.html

7/7