G.R. No. 108558 - Tabuso vs. Court of Appeals

Case Digest (G.R. No. 108558)
Advanced

Facts:

Nature of the case and procedural posture
Petitioners Andrea Tabuso and Renato Bismorte filed an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the July 29, 1992 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. 26047 and its January 14, 1993 Resolution denying reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, which found abundant proof of private respondents’ ownership of the land in dispute, as against petitioners’ scanty evidence.

Identity of the land and claim for judicial declaration
The case in the trial court involved a declaration of ownership filed before the Regional Trial Court of Naval, Leyte, located in Biliran, Leyte, concerning an unregistered parcel of land at Antipolo, Naval, Leyte with an area stated as 3,267 square meters.
The Court of Appeals also noted that a court-appointed commissioner found an area of 11,927 square meters, and the issue later involved whether the smaller area proved ownership.

Petitioners’ evidence and theory of ownership
Petitioners presented Tax Declaration No. 3705 (Exh. A) in the name of Ignacio Montes for the year 1912.
Petitioners’ showing of tax payment was limited: the land taxes for the years 1944 to 1947 were paid only in 1981 (Exh. F and series).
Petitioner Andrea Tabuso claimed ownership as successor in interest (granddaughter) of Andrea Elaba, daughter of Maria Montes and Borja Elaba.
Petitioners claimed that Maria Montes was a sister of Ignacio Montes, in whose name the 1912 tax declaration for the property was issued (Exh. A).
Petitioners relied on the fact that private respondents (heirs of Esteban Abad) possessed the property, while petitioners asserted that the house standing thereon appeared to have been constructed by Marcelo Tabuso, father of petitioner Andrea Tabuso.

Private respondents’ evidence and theory of ownership
Private respondents’ evidence established that:

The land originally owned by Maria Montes was donated to Isabel Elaba by an ancient document executed on September 24, 1923 (Exh. F).
Isabel Elaba sold the land to Esteban Abad on May 5, 1948 (Exh. 4).

Private respondents traced subsequent tax declarations over the property:

The original tax declaration in the name of Ignacio Montes (Exh. A) was superseded by Tax Declaration Nos. 6422 and 1450 in the name of Isabel Elaba (Exh. 6-D; 6-E).
Declaration No. 1450 for the year 1948 was superseded by Tax Declaration No. 6959 for 1960 in the name of Esteban Abad (Exh. 6-C).
The 1960 declaration was superseded in 1969 by Tax Declaration No. 1661 in the name of Esteban Abad (Exh. 6-B).
In 1974, a new tax declaration No. 19 (Exh. 6-A) was issued in the name of Esteban Abad with Nemesio Abad and his co-heirs as administrators.
The last tax declaration No. 22 (Exh. 6) for 1982 was in the name of Esteban Abad.

Private respondents showed that land taxes were paid by their predecessors:

Taxes due for the years 1947 to 1982 were paid by Isabel Elaba, Esteban Abad, and Nemesio Abad (Exhs. 7 to 7-W).

Private respondents established tenancy and possession:

The land was tenanted by Valentin Poblete pursuant to a lease contract executed by defendant Nemesio Abad, one of the heirs and co-owners of the land.

Trial court disposition and factual conclusions adopted by the Court of Appeals
The trial court dismissed the complaint and declared the defendants as lawful owners of the land in question.
The trial court concluded that private respondents had abundant proof of ownership and that petitioners presented only scant evidence.
The trial court considered that even if petitioners built a house, such construction was only tolerated by private respondents:

The trial court reasoned that private respondents had originally allowed Marcelo Tabuso (petitioners’ father) to construct a house on the same lot.

The trial court ruled on petitioners’ claimed inheritance:

Petitioner Tabuso was not a compulsory heir of Ignacio Montes, from whom she claimed to have inherited.

The trial court credited evidence of possession and ownership through taxation and testimony:

The trial court noted that the tax declaration in Ignacio Montes’s name had long been revised.
The trial court gave weight to the testimony of Atty. Jose Gonzales, presented by petitioners as their own witness.

Atty. Jose Gonzales’s testimony, as characterized by the trial and appellate courts:

He testified that land adjacent to his own land (the land in question being the subject of litigation) was possessed by Esteban Abad’s heirs.
He allegedly testified based on personal knowledge, since he owned adjacent property and frequently visited and passed by the disputed land.

The trial court also took note of the various tax declarations indicating ownership by private respondents.

Court of Appeals ruling and reliance on evidentiary weight
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s findings and gave preponderance of evidence to private respondents’ claim of ownership.
The Court of Appeals ruled that:

The trial court could not be faulted for giving weight to Atty. Jose Gonzales’s testimony.
Atty. Gonzales was presented by petitioners; therefore, petitioners were bound by his testimony even if it favored private respondents.

The Court of Appeals addressed petitioners’ challenge to the 1923 donation:

It held that it was too late to question the validity of the donation d...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

Main issue on the appeal
Who owned the land in dispute.

Ancillary issues raised by petitioners
Whether the Court of Appeals findings that private respondents were in possession and owners of the land were contradicted by evidence on record.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by upholding the validity of a Deed of Donation dated September 23, 1923 which petitioners asserted was spurious because the donor (Maria Montes) allegedly was already dead as early as 1919.
Whether private respondents could not be declared owners since private respondents did not file their appellees brief, and petitioners claimed that private respondents admitted petitioners’ facts set forth in petitioners’ brief.
Whether a...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. 108558)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 108558)
Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 108558) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 108558) Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 108558)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. 108558)
Advanced