Tabuso v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over the ownership of an unregistered parcel of land located in Antipolo, Naval, Leyte, with an area of 3,267 square meters. The petitioners, Andrea Tabuso and Renato Bismorte, claim ownership as successors-in-interest to Andrea Elaba, who they assert is the granddaughter of Maria Montes. The respondents, the heirs of Esteban Abad, claim ownership based on a donation from Maria Montes to Isabel Elaba in 1923, followed by a sale from Isabel Elaba to Esteban Abad in 1948. The underlying dispute centers on conflicting claims of inheritance and purchase, with evidence presented by both sides regarding tax declarations, possession, and the validity of historical documents. 2. Procedural History: The case originated with a declaration of ownership filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naval, Leyte. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents (defendants-appellees), finding abundant proof of their ownership and dismissing the petitioners' complaint. The petitioners appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC's decision in its entirety, upholding the findings of ownership and possession in favor of the respondents. The petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied. This present action is an appeal by the petitioners to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioners are before the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals. They argue that the CA's findings on ownership are contradicted by the evidence, that the CA gravely abused its discretion in upholding the validity of a Deed of Donation allegedly executed by a deceased person, that the CA erred in holding the respondents as owners despite their alleged admission of the petitioners' facts, that the CA's order to deliver the entire land area is illegal, and that the CA erred in concluding ownership based solely on tax declarations without proof of actual physical possession. The core of their argument is that the respondents' claim of ownership is not sufficiently substantiated by the evidence presented.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's finding of ownership in favor of the private respondents. Whether the Deed of Donation dated September 23, 1923, is spurious; and whether the private respondents are barred by laches from questioning the validity of the Deed of Donation, and whether they are precluded from raising the issue of the Deed of Donation's validity for the first time on appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding private respondents as owners despite their alleged admission of facts set forth by appellants in their appellants' brief; and relatedly, the distinction between possession and ownership. Whether the order to deliver the entire 11,927 sq. meters to private respondents is illegal and unsupported by evidence, specifically addressing the sufficiency of tax declarations and acts of ownership. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that private respondents are the owners of the land merely on the basis of their tax declarations without evidence of actual physical possession.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of ownership and the weight given to factual findings: The Court reiterated the settled rule that great weight and even finality are accorded to the factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals which affirm those of the trial courts. Such findings can only be overturned if they are clearly shown to be whimsical, capricious, and arbitrary. In this case, both the trial and appellate courts found abundant proof of the private respondents' ownership based on the totality of evidence, which included tax declarations and acts consistent with ownership. The petitioners' claim of ownership was deemed scanty in comparison. The Court found that for over 60 years, the private respondents had established open, continuous, uninterrupted, and adverse possession, supported by tax declarations and consistent payment of land taxes. On the validity of the Deed of Donation and laches: The Court upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling that petitioners were barred by laches from questioning the validity of the Deed of Donation, which was executed more than 60 years prior to the case. Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do what could and should have been done earlier. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners were precluded from raising this argument for the first time on appeal. Additionally, the Court pointed out that the petitioners failed to prove that the Maria Montes named in the death certificate was the same Maria Montes who executed the Deed of Donation, as they were shown to have different sets of parents. The death certificate itself was also inadmissible as it was not marked in evidence nor subjected to cross-examination. On possession versus ownership: The Court distinguished between possession and ownership, emphasizing that possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right, which can be in the concept of an owner or as a mere holder. Ownership, on the other hand, is the complete subjection of a thing to one's will. The Court found that the petitioners' occupation of the property was merely tolerated, not in the concept of owners, as evidenced by the fact that Andrea Tabuso's father was merely allowed by the previous owner to construct a house. The notice to vacate issued by the private respondents further supported their claim of ownership and the tolerated nature of the petitioners' presence. On the sufficiency of tax declarations and acts of ownership and the size of the lot: The Court found that the private respondents' claim of ownership was sufficiently supported by their tax declarations and their consistent payment of taxes on the property for many years. Moreover, the execution of a lease contract by one of the co-owners with a tenant demonstrated acts consistent with ownership. The Court clarified that actual physical presence on the property is not always necessary to prove ownership, especially when other acts indicative of ownership are present. The Court dismissed the petitioners' argument regarding the discrepancy in the lot's area, stating that the area indicated in tax declarations is not definitive. What defines a piece of land are its boundaries or "metes and bounds." Since the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim to any part of the disputed land, their contention regarding the area was deemed without merit. On the conclusion of ownership based on tax declarations: The Court found that the private respondents' claim of ownership was sufficiently supported by their tax declarations and their consistent payment of taxes on the property for many years.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that great weight and even finality are accorded to the factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals which affirm those of the trial courts, and these can only be overturned if found to be whimsical, capricious, and arbitrary. Ownership is established by a preponderance of evidence, including tax declarations and acts consistent with ownership such as paying taxes and leasing the property, even if actual physical presence is not maintained.