G.R. No. 137944 April 6, 2000
FACTS:
Prior to 1954 a parcel of land located in the Province of Rizal was originally declared for taxation purposes of the father (Sinfroso Mendoza) of herein respondent who also is the present occupant of the land.
Subsequently the said tax declaration was cancelled and declared under the name of Sinfroso's brother (Margarito Mendoza) who are alsot the Petitioners' father.
On October 15, 1975. respondent and another brother of the petitioners ( Miguel) had a dispute over the ownership of the land during the cadastral survey of the same.
Trial Court rendred that the righful owner and possessor of the land is the petitioners.
Court of Appeals reversed the decision on the ground that the affidavits presented during trial had not been sufficiently established. Moreover, the appellate court held that the probative value of petitioners' tax receipts and declarations paled in comparison with respondent's proof of ownership of the disputed parcel. Actual, physical, exclusive and continuous possession by respondent since 1985 indeed gave her a better title under Article 538 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is the lawful owner and possessor of the parcel of land.
HELD:
YES.
When respondent came of age in 1948, she paid realty taxes for the years 1932-1948. Margarito declared the lot for taxation in his name in 1953 and paid its realty taxes beginning 1952. When he died, Miguel continued cultivating the land. As found by the CA, the respondent and her mother were living on the land, which was being tilled by Miguel until 1985 when he was physically ousted by the respondent.
Based on Article 538 of the Civil Code, the respondent is the preferred possessor because, benefiting from her father's tax declaration of the subject lot since 1926, she has been in possession thereof for a longer period. On the other hand, petitioners' father acquired joint possession only in 1952.
To settle the issue of ownership, we need to determine who between the claimants has proven acquisitive prescription.
Ownership of immovable property is acquired by ordinary prescription through possession for ten years. Being the sole heir of her father, respondent showed through his tax receipt that she had been in possession of the land for more than ten years since 1932. When her father died in 1930, she continued to reside there with her mother. When she got married, she and her husband engaged in kaingin inside the disputed lot for their livelihood.
Respondent's possession was not disturbed until 1953 when the petitioners' father claimed the land. But by then, her possession, which was in the concept of owner — public, peaceful, and uninterrupted— had already ripened into ownership. Furthermore she herself, after her father's demise, declared and paid realty taxes for the disputed land. Tax receipts and declarations of ownership for taxation, when coupled with proof of actual possession of the property, can be the basis of a claim for ownership through prescription.
In contrast, the petitioners, despite thirty-two years of farming the subject land, did not acquire ownership. It is settled that ownership cannot be acquired by mere occupation. Unless coupled with the element of hostility toward the true owner, occupation and use, however long, will not confer title by prescription or adverse possession. Moreover, the petitioners cannot claim that their possession was public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Although their father and brother arguably acquired ownership through extraordinary prescription because of their adverse possession for thirty-two years (1953-1985), This supposed ownership cannot extend to the entire disputed lot, but must be limited to the portion that they actually farmed.
We cannot sustain the petitioners' contention that their ownership of the disputed land was established before the trial court through the series of tax declarations and receipts issued in the name of Margarito Mendoza. Such documents prove that the holder has a claim of title over the property. Aside from manifesting a sincere desire to obtain title thereto, they announce the holder's adverse claim against the state and other interested parties.
However, tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership. At most, they constitute mere prima facie proof of ownership or possession of the property for which taxes have been paid. In the absence of actual public and adverse possession, the declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove ownership. In sum, the petitioners' claim of ownership of the whole parcel has no legal basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment