G.R. No. L-6246 - People vs. Ripas

The case involves a dispute over the declaration of ownership of an unregistered parcel of land located at Antipolo, Naval, Leyte.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naval, Leyte, Branch 16, originally handled the declaration of ownership, which pertained to a lot with an area noted as 3,267 square meters in the tax declaration, but later identified as 11,927 square meters by a court-appointed commissioner.
Petitioners Andrea Tabuso and Renato Bismorte filed the appeal under Rule 45, assailing the RTC decision, which was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals (CA).

A tax declaration (No. 3705) issued in the name of Ignacio Montes for the year 1912, which purportedly establishes a basis for their claim.
The petitioner Andrea Tabuso claimed succession in interest as the granddaughter of Andrea Elaba, who is connected to Maria Montes (sister of Ignacio Montes), thereby implying an inherited interest in the property.
The timing of payment of land taxes relating to the property (taxes for 1944 to 1947 were paid only in 1981) was presented to challenge continuous ownership by the respondents.

Petitioners conceded that a house had been constructed on the property, built by Marcelo Tabuso (father of Andrea Tabuso).
They maintained that even if the house existed, its construction was merely tolerated and did not amount to conclusive evidence of actual ownership.

The original ownership by Maria Montes was evidenced by a donation document executed on September 24, 1923, wherein Maria Montes donated the land to Isabel Elaba.
Isabel Elaba subsequently sold the land to Esteban Abad on May 5, 1948.
The original tax declaration in Ignacio Montes’ name was later superseded by successive tax declarations: first in the name of Isabel Elaba (Tax Declaration Nos. 6422 and 1450), then by declarations in the name of Esteban Abad (Nos. 6959 for 1960 and No. 1661 for 1969), culminating with a declaration (No. 19 in 1974 and No. 22 in 1982) reflecting Esteban Abad or his co-heirs.

Respondents demonstrated continuous, open, and adverse possession of the land for over 60 years, supported by the pattern of tax payments made by Isabel Elaba, Esteban Abad, and Nemesio Abad.
A lease contract issued by one of the respondents (Nemesio Abad) established the existence of a tenant, further evidencing the exercise of rights typical of ownership.
The existence of a letter addressed to petitioners, instructing them to vacate the “barong-barong” or shanty constructed on the property, reinforced the respondents’ claim as the rightful and lawful owners.

The Regional Trial Court found that the evidence in support of the respondents’ ownership was abundant and incontrovertible when compared to the scanty evidence presented by the petitioners.
The RTC gave critical weight to the testimonial evidence of Atty. Jose Gonzales—presented by petitioners although he was counsel for the respondents—who personally attested to the possession and ownership of the land by the respondents.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision, emphasizing that the factual findings based on continuous possession and the documentary evidence (notably the tax declarations) were conclusive.
The CA noted that even if petitioners had constructed a dwelling on the property, this did not convert their status to that of an owner, but merely indicated a tolerated occupation.

Whether the evidence establishes that private respondents (heirs of Esteban Abad) are the lawful owners of the disputed land, given the contrasting evidences and claims.

The contention that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are in conflict with the evidence on record.
Whether the validity of the Deed of Donation executed on September 24, 1923—alleged to be spurious due to Maria Montes allegedly being dead since 1919—should have been reconsidered.
The argument that respondents should not be deemed owners on the basis of their tax declarations alone, without evidence of actual, physical possession.
An issue regarding the order that delivered the entire area of 11,927 square meters to the respondents rather than only the 3,267 square meters indicated in some tax records.
A broader contention questioning the reliance on the testimony of a counsel (Atty. Jose Gonzales) who, despite being respondents’ counsel, was presented by petitioners and thus binds them to his personal knowledge of possession.