Case Digest (G.R. No. 256851)
Facts:
Spouses Marino Dagode and Julita Duero Dagode v. Elesito D. Tapao, G.R. No. 256851, August 02, 2023, Supreme Court Second Division, Lopez, M., J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Spouses Dagode (petitioners) sought review under Rule 45 of the Court of Appeals–Cebu City decision in CA‑G.R. CEB‑SP No. 07729 and its Resolution, which declared respondents to have the better right of possession over the disputed land.Respondents Elesito D. Tapao (substituted by his children: Edsel L. Tapao, Emelyn T. Simpeon, Elixer L. Tapao and Engelbert L. Tapao) (collectively, Tapao siblings) alleged ownership of Cadastral Lot No. 6277 under Tax Declaration No. 033370, inherited from their parents, and averred that the Dagodes’ ancestors were allowed to occupy the lot as a temporary, gratuitous arrangement beginning about 1952. When the Tapao family later sought to use the land, they demanded possession on July 31, 2009; the Dagodes refused to vacate. The Tapao siblings filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), City of Naga, Cebu.
At the MTCC, respondents relied principally on Elesito’s affidavit and the single tax declaration; petitioners countered that the tax declaration lacked a technical description and that tolerance was unsupported hearsay, and they denied that the lot they occupied was Lot No. 6277. On August 25, 2010, the MTCC dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint for lack of evidence, holding a tax declaration alone insufficient and noting respondents’ failure to show physical possession or the exact location of the lot.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, Cebu City, affirmed the MTCC on March 8, 2011 (Civil Case No. CEB‑37351), reiterating that a mere tax declaration does not prove ownership and pointing to confusion over the lot’s identity (including an assessor’s earlier erroneous designation). The RTC denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration on April 12, 2013.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, however, the CA reversed the RTC in its March 28, 2018 Decision in CA‑G.R. CEB‑SP No. 07729, ruling that respondents were entitled to possession, that prior physical possession by a plaintiff is not indispensable in an unlawful detainer case, and that Tax Declaration No. 033370 constituted prima facie evidence of respondents’ claim to title and the right to possession. The CA ordered possession restored to the party it deemed entitled (and awarded monthly rentals and costs). The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in its January 26, 2021 Resolution.
Petitioners then brought this Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari b...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court, in a Rule 45 petition, re‑examine the Court of Appeals’ findings of fact?
- Did respondents prove the requisites for unlawful detainer and thus establish a better right of possession?
- Are a tax declaration and the affidavit of an heir sufficient to establish ownership/possession and the identity of the lot in ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)