Mendoza Cequeña v. Mendoza Bolante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership and possession of a parcel of land in Barangay Bangad, Binangonan, Province of Rizal, with an area of 1,728 square meters, identified by Tax Declaration No. 26-0027. The land was originally declared for taxation in the name of Sinforoso Mendoza, father of the respondent, Honorata Mendoza Bolante. Following Sinforoso's death, the tax declaration was cancelled and subsequently declared in the name of Margarito Mendoza, brother of Sinforoso and father of the petitioners, Fernanda Mendoza Cequena and Ruperta Mendoza Lirio. The respondent is the current occupant of the land, and a dispute over its ownership arose between her and Miguel Mendoza, another brother of the petitioners, during a cadastral survey on October 15, 1975. Procedural History: The case originated in the trial court, which rendered a judgment in favor of the petitioners, declaring them the rightful owners of the land and ordering the respondent to vacate and deliver possession. The respondent appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, setting aside the judgment and ruling that the respondent, Honorata Mendoza Bolante, was the rightful owner and possessor of the disputed land. This decision by the Court of Appeals is now the subject of the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision, alleging that the appellate court committed reversible errors. Specifically, they contend that the Court of Appeals erred in not considering an affidavit as an exception to the hearsay rule, despite the affiant not being placed on the witness stand, and in holding that the respondent had established actual, physical, exclusive, and continuous possession of the land since 1985, which they argue is evidence of a preferred possessor. The petitioners insist they are the rightful owners of the disputed land.
Issue(s)
Whether the affidavit presented by the petitioners was admissible as evidence. Whether the respondent's possession of the land since 1985 established her ownership and preferred right thereto. Whether the petitioners' claim of ownership based on tax declarations and receipts is superior to the respondent's claim.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the respondent is the rightful owner and possessor of the disputed parcel of land.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the affidavit: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the affidavit was inadmissible. Affidavits are generally hearsay evidence unless the affiants are presented in court. The petitioners failed to establish the due execution and authenticity of the affidavit, especially since one of the affiants, Eduarda Apiado, was alleged to be illiterate and the respondent denied her own signature. The affidavit could not be considered an ancient document as its genuineness was cast in doubt by the circumstances surrounding its execution and the illiteracy of one of the signatories. Furthermore, an affidavit is not a mode of acquiring ownership. On the preference of possession: The Court agreed with the CA that respondent is the preferred possessor under Article 538 of the Civil Code. While possession cannot be acquired by force or violence (Article 536), and a dispossessed possessor is still deemed the legal possessor, the petitioners' possession prior to 1985 was not exclusive. Both families occupied and cultivated the land. However, the respondent's possession, benefiting from her father's tax declaration since 1926 and continuing after his death, was for a longer period. Petitioners' father only acquired joint possession in 1952. On possession of better right and ownership: The Court clarified that possession under Article 541 of the Civil Code (presumption of title) is disputable and does not equate to ownership. Ownership must be established by law. The Court found that respondent acquired ownership by acquisitive prescription. Her possession since 1932, in the concept of owner—public, peaceful, and uninterrupted—ripened into ownership by 1953, even before petitioners' father claimed joint possession. Tax receipts and declarations, while prima facie proof of ownership or possession, are not conclusive evidence of ownership and do not prove ownership in the absence of actual public and adverse possession. The petitioners' claim of ownership over the whole parcel lacked legal basis.
Main Doctrine
Tax receipts and declarations are prima facie proofs of ownership or possession, and coupled with actual possession, may form the basis of a claim for ownership. Mere possession and occupation, however, cannot ripen into ownership. Possession by itself, even if prior, does not necessarily prevail over another's claim of ownership if the latter is better established by law.