Ebreo v. Ebreo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over Lot No. 9046-F, a parcel of land originally left by Felipe Ebreo to his five children. Following Felipe's death, his heirs extrajudicially partitioned most of the property through a "Kasulatan ng Pagbabahagi ng Lupa" in 1967. However, Lot No. 9046-F, with an area of 13,799 square meters, was agreed to remain under the co-ownership of the heirs of Felipe Ebreo and the heirs of Felipa Ebreo. The plaintiffs, including Gil Ebreo and others represented by Felixberto Ebreo, Flaviano Ebreo, and Homobono Cueto, filed a complaint for Partition, Reconveyance, Accounting, and Damages, alleging that they discovered Lot No. 9046-F was declared for taxation purposes in the name of defendant Antonio Ebreo, despite never having sold their shares. Procedural History: The complaint was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 7. The defendants countered that the heirs of Felipe Ebreo had sold Lot No. 9046-F to Santiago Puyo, who subsequently sold it to Antonio Ebreo. They presented Tax Declaration No. 48221, dated January 15, 1973, in the name of Santiago Puyo, which bore an annotation of the alleged sale. The RTC rendered a decision on August 18, 1997, ordering the partition of Lot No. 9046-F and dismissing the defendants' counterclaim, while awarding attorney's fees and costs to the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which denied their appeal for lack of merit on February 27, 2003, affirming the RTC's decision. The Court of Appeals found that the defendants failed to produce the alleged Deed of Sale, violating the Best Evidence Rule, and that tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership. A motion for reconsideration was denied on September 22, 2003. The Petition: The petitioners, Felino Ebreo and Spouses Antonio and Evelyn P. Beraña, Ignacio Ebreo and Eleuteria Cueto, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They raised two main issues: (1) whether an annotation of a Deed of Sale in a tax declaration is sufficient proof of transfer, invoking the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty; and (2) whether entries in official records are admissible to establish a valid transfer of ownership. The petitioners argued that the annotation on Tax Declaration No. 48221, along with testimonies and tax payments, sufficiently proved the sale of Lot No. 9046-F. They contended that the original deed was lost in a fire and that their possession was open, continuous, and in the concept of owners. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition to be without merit, reiterating that factual findings of lower courts, when supported by substantial evidence, are binding, and that an annotation on a tax declaration, without the original deed or proof of its loss under the exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule, is insufficient to prove a transfer of property.
Issue(s)
Whether an annotation in a tax declaration of an alleged Deed of Sale sufficiently proves conveyance of title to a property. Whether entries in official records are admissible in evidence to establish the fact of valid transfer of Lot No. 9046-F that effectively conveyed ownership of the property from the heirs of Felipe Ebreo to Santiago Puyo. Whether the defendants-appellants' open, adverse, notorious, and continuous possession of the land for several years amounts to ownership.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the RTC decision is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of annotation in a tax declaration as proof of transfer: The Court held that an annotation of an alleged Deed of Sale in a tax declaration is not sufficient proof of the transfer of property. The primary evidence, the original Deed of Sale, must be presented. The annotation on Tax Declaration No. 48221, detailing the particulars of the alleged deed of sale, was considered a "very very poor ersatz for the primary document." The Court emphasized that the Best Evidence Rule requires the production of the original document unless specific exceptions are met. The petitioners failed to prove any of these exceptions, particularly the loss or destruction of the original deed and all its copies without bad faith. On the admissibility of entries in official records as proof of valid transfer: The Court ruled that while tax declarations and payment of taxes are indicia of a claim of ownership, they are not conclusive proof of ownership. The presumption of regularity in the issuance of official records is a mere presumption, not absolute, and applies only in the absence of proof to the contrary. The testimony of the City Assessor's Office employee regarding the annotation was deemed inconclusive as he was not employed at the time of the annotation and did not witness the execution of the deed. Furthermore, the delay in the issuance of tax declarations in the name of Santiago Puyo after the alleged sale cast doubt on the veracity of the transaction. On possession amounting to ownership: The Court reiterated that the defendants-appellants, being co-owners of the land as evidenced by the "Kasulatan ng Pagbabahagi ng Lupa," could not acquire ownership by prescription over the shares of the other co-owners. This is because a co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of the other co-owners absent a clear repudiation of co-ownership duly communicated to the other co-owners. The open, adverse, notorious, and continuous possession, while present, did not ripen into ownership because the foundational sale to Santiago Puyo was not proven, and thus, the subsequent sale to Antonio Ebreo was ineffectual as the seller (Santiago Puyo) could not transfer more than what he allegedly acquired.
Main Doctrine
An annotation in a tax declaration of an alleged Deed of Sale is insufficient to prove conveyance of title to a property, especially when the original deed cannot be presented and the exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule are not met. Tax declarations and payment of taxes are merely indicia of a claim of ownership, not conclusive proof thereof.