Case Digest (G.R. No. 137944)
Facts:
Fernanda Mendoza Cequena and Ruperta Mendoza Lirio, petitioners, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 137944) assailing the March 19, 1999 decision of the Court of Appeals; the case was decided by the Supreme Court Third Division on April 06, 2000, with Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. The Court of Appeals’ Seventh Division (J. Mariano M. Umali, ponente; Fermin A. Martin Jr., Division Chairman; Romeo J. Callejo Sr., member) had reversed the trial court and declared Honorata Mendoza Bolante (respondent) the rightful owner and possessor of the disputed land.The parcel is in Barangay Bangad, Binangonan, Rizal, with an area of 1,728 square meters and covered by Tax Declaration No. 26-0027. The historical ownership record shows the land was originally declared for taxation in the name of Sinforoso Mendoza (respondent’s father) prior to 1954; Sinforoso died in 1930. On affidavit, the tax declaration was later cancelled and the lot declared in the name of Margarito Mendoza (petitioners’ father), a brother of Sinforoso. Petitioners are Margarito’s daughters; respondent is Sinforoso’s daughter. During the cadastral survey on October 15, 1979 (text also refers to disputes in 1975), a dispute arose between respondent and Miguel Mendoza (petitioners’ brother). At pretrial the parties stipulated identity of the parcel, familial relationships, that Margarito and Sinforoso were brothers, that respondent was occupying the property, and that a dispute existed.
At trial the RTC rendered judgment for petitioners, declaring the lot belonged to Margarito’s heirs (the petitioners), ordering respondent to vacate and deliver possession, awarding P10,000 actual damages, and costs. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding (a) the affidavit relied upon by petitioners was not sufficiently authenticated and was suspect, and (b) respondent had been in notorious, actual, exclusive and continuous possession since 1985 and was the preferred possessor under Article 538 of the Civil Code; CA therefore declared responde...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the affidavit relied upon by the petitioners admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule (declaration against interest/ancient document) when the affiant was not placed on the witness stand?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly hold that respondent was the preferred possessor under Article 538 of the Civil Code?
- Did respondent’s possession ripen into ownership by prescription (acquisitive prescription/possession in the concept of owner), and were petitioners’ tax declarations an...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)