Calicdan v. Cendaña
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over a 760 square meter parcel of unregistered land in Mangaldan, Pangasinan. The land was originally owned by Sixto Calicdan, who died intestate in 1941, survived by his wife Fermina and three children, including petitioner Soledad Calicdan. In 1947, Fermina executed a deed of donation inter vivos, conveying the land to respondent Silverio Cendaña. Cendaña immediately took possession, constructed a fence and a two-story house, and resided on the property until his death in 1998. Procedural History: In 1992, petitioner Soledad Calicdan, through her guardian, filed a complaint for recovery of ownership, possession, and damages, asserting the donation was void and that Cendaña had taken advantage of her incompetence. Cendaña, in his defense, claimed ownership through the 1947 donation and asserted possession for 45 years, also arguing the case was barred by a prior judgment. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Calicdan, ordering Cendaña to vacate and pay damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, upholding the validity of the donation and finding that Calicdan had lost ownership through prescription. The Petition: Petitioner Soledad Calicdan seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, raising two main issues: (1) the validity of the donation inter vivos, and (2) whether she lost ownership of the land through prescription. The petition argues that the Court of Appeals erred in its findings of fact, particularly regarding the validity of the donation, which was based on hearsay testimony. The petitioner contends that the donation was void as Fermina was not the owner of the land at the time of the donation, and that the respondent's possession, even if lengthy, was not sufficient to establish ownership by prescription due to the void title.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the donation inter vivos is valid. Whether or not petitioner lost ownership of the land by prescription.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing the petitioner's complaint, but on the ground of extraordinary acquisitive prescription, not on the validity of the donation. The Court declared the deed of donation inter vivos void but held that respondent Silverio Cendaña had become the rightful owner of the land by virtue of extraordinary acquisitive prescription.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the donation inter vivos: The Court found that the Court of Appeals' ruling that the donation was valid was not supported by convincing proof. The respondent admitted during cross-examination that he had no personal knowledge of how the original owner, Sixto Calicdan, acquired the land, relying only on information and hearsay. The Court reiterated the rule that a witness can testify only to facts known of their own personal knowledge, and hearsay testimony is inadmissible and without evidentiary weight. Therefore, the donation executed by Fermina, who was not the owner of the property, was declared void. On whether petitioner lost ownership by prescription: Notwithstanding the invalidity of the donation, the Court held that the respondent had become the rightful owner by extraordinary acquisitive prescription. The respondent had been in possession of the unregistered land for over 45 years from the time of the purported donation in 1947 until the filing of the case in 1992. This period exceeded the 30 years required for extraordinary acquisitive prescription, which does not require good faith or just title. The possession was public, adverse, and in the concept of an owner, evidenced by fencing the land, constructing a house, cultivating the fruits, declaring the land for taxation, and religiously paying realty taxes. The Court cited that tax declarations and realty tax payments, while not conclusive proof of ownership, are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner. Furthermore, even a void deed of donation can serve as a basis for adverse possession, explaining the exclusive and adverse character of the possession.
Main Doctrine
While a void donation cannot transfer ownership, the donee may acquire ownership through extraordinary acquisitive prescription if the possession is public, peaceful, continuous, adverse, and in the concept of an owner for thirty years, even without just title or good faith. Tax declarations and payment of realty taxes are strong indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.