G.R. No. 158385 - Palali vs. Awisan

Respondent Juliet Awisan claimed ownership of a 6.6698-hectare parcel of land in Sitio Camambaey, Tapapan, Bauko, Mountain Province, covered by Tax Declaration No. 147. She alleged that petitioner Modesto Palali encroached on the northern portion of her property and surreptitiously declared it in his name for tax purposes. She filed an action for quieting of title, seeking to declare her as the rightful owner of the encroached portion, cancel Palali’s tax declaration, and remove him and his improvements from the property.

Petitioner Modesto Palali denied the encroachment and asserted ownership over the subject property. He claimed that he and his predecessors-in-interest had openly and continuously possessed the land since time immemorial. He and his siblings were born on the land, and his parents were buried there. He declared the land in his name for taxation purposes in 1974, covering 200 square meters of residential lot and 648 square meters of rootcrop land.

Respondent’s father, Cresencio Cadwising, testified that he consolidated ownership of the land by declaring it from public land and purchasing portions from adjoining landowners. He included a communal sacred lot in his tax declaration, even though he did not acquire a free patent title for it. Cadwising claimed to have introduced improvements on the land as early as the 1960s. The land was mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), which later sold it to Tico Tibong, who donated it to respondent.

Petitioner maintained that his family had been in continuous possession of the land since the pre-war era. His grandfather, Mocnangan, cultivated the land and passed it down to his daughter, Tammam, who, along with her husband, Palalag, built a home and introduced terraces and fruit-bearing plants. When Tammam and Palalag died, petitioner buried them on the land and continued cultivating it. He also built a new home on the property.

The RTC dismissed respondent’s complaint, finding that she failed to prove physical possession of the land. The court noted that during an ocular inspection, none of the improvements Cadwising claimed to have introduced were found. In contrast, petitioner’s witnesses testified to his continuous possession and improvements on the land. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring him the lawful owner and possessor of the subject property.

The CA reversed the RTC’s decision, ruling that petitioner failed to prove possession of the entire 6.6698-hectare land. The CA found that petitioner only occupied the portion where his house was located and the area below it where he planted fruit-bearing plants. The CA awarded the entire 6.6698-hectare property to respondent, excluding the 200-square meter residential lot occupied by petitioner.

The primary issue is who between the parties has the better right to the subject property. Specifically:

Whether petitioner’s possession of the subject property, coupled with his tax declaration, is sufficient to establish ownership.
Whether respondent’s tax declaration and documentary evidence are sufficient to overcome petitioner’s claim of ownership.