G.R. No. 137944 - Cequena vs. Bolante

Case Summary (G.R. No. 137944)

Factual Background

The controversy concerned a parcel of land in Barangay Bangad, Binangonan, Rizal, described as measuring 1,728 square meters and bearing Tax Declaration No. 26-0027. The land was originally declared for taxation in the name of Sinforoso Mendoza, father of respondent, who died in 1930. Petitioners are daughters of Margarito Mendoza, brother of Sinforoso. An affidavit executed in 1953 purportedly cancelled the tax declaration in Sinforoso’s name and declared the land in Margarito’s name. Both families occupied and cultivated portions of the lot over many decades. The respondent and her mother paid realty taxes for years 1932 to 1948, and Margarito paid taxes beginning in 1952; petitioners produced tax declarations and receipts in Margarito’s name for various years. A cadastral-survey dispute between members of the families arose during survey activities referenced in the record. In 1985 Miguel Mendoza, son of Margarito, was physically ousted by respondent, and respondent asserted exclusive possession thereafter.

Trial Court Proceedings

The trial court resolved ownership in favor of Fernanda Mendoza Cequena and Ruperta Mendoza Lirio, declaring the parcel to belong to the heirs of Margarito Mendoza, ordering Honorata Mendoza Bolante to vacate and deliver possession, awarding petitioners actual damages of P10,000 and costs. The dispositive judgment rested on the trial court’s view of the petitioners’ tax declarations and receipts and their possession.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals reversed. It found the 1953 affidavit unreliable because its due execution and the genuineness of the signatures were not sufficiently established; no notary or attesting witness was presented and one affiant, the respondent, was alive and denied her signature. The CA held the affidavit insufficient to overcome respondent’s denial. The appellate court also gave greater weight to respondent’s proof of actual, physical, exclusive and continuous possession, and deemed her the preferred possessor under Article 538. The CA declared Honorata Mendoza Bolante the rightful owner and possessor of the disputed parcel.

Issues Presented

The petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in two respects: (one) by refusing to treat the 1953 affidavit as admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule including as a declaration against interest and as an ancient document; and (two) by holding that respondent’s alleged possession since 1985 constituted the preferred possession that proved ownership under Article 538.

First Issue: Admissibility of the Affidavit

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s disposition on admissibility. It reiterated that private documentary evidence must be authenticated and its due execution proved before admission. Affidavits are ordinarily hearsay unless the affiant testifies; an affidavit is not the best evidence when the affiant is available as a witness. A declaration against interest is admissible only if the declarant is dead, insane or otherwise unavailable, and if the other criteria of Rule 130, Sec. 38 are satisfied. In this case one affiant was the respondent who testified and denied the signature attributed to her, and testimony indicated the other affiant was illiterate, casting doubt on how her signature could have been written. The Court further held that the affidavit did not qualify as an ancient document under Rule 132, Sec. 21 because the circumstances surrounding its execution and the questioned signatures rendered it suspicious. The Court also noted that the affidavit did not explain any mode of transfer of ownership from Sinforoso to Margarito and that an affidavit alone cannot effectuate a change of ownership.

Second Issue: Preference of Possession

The Court addressed possession and the preference afforded to a possessor who is notorious, actual, exclusive and continuous under Article 538. It observed that possession acquired through force or violence cannot create legal possession under Article 536, and that a dispossessed possessor may still be the legal possessor. Nevertheless, the Court found that petitioners’ prior possession was not exclusively theirs because both branches of the Mendoza family simultaneously occupied and tilled the land for many years. The record showed that respondent’s family had possessed and cultivated portions of the parcel since the time of Sinforoso and that respondent had paid taxes and occupied the land prior to petitioners’ exclusive claim. Having possessed the land in the concept of owner for a longer period, respondent was the preferred possessor under Article 538.

Third Issue: Ownership by Prescription and the Presumption of Possession

The Court examined whether respondent’s possession had ripened into ownership. It clarified that the presumption in Article 541 that a disturbed possessor must be restored is disputable. Ownership must be proven by methods recognized by law; on

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 137944)

Parties and Posture

FERNANDA MENDOZA CEQUENA AND RUPERTA MENDOZA LIRIO, PETITIONERS sought review by the Supreme Court of a Court of Appeals decision in CA-GR CV No. 43423 reversing the trial court and declaring HONORATA MENDOZA BOLANTE, RESPONDENT the rightful owner and possessor of the disputed parcel.
The petition assailed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the Regional Trial Court judgment and raised evidentiary and possession-based challenges to the appellate ruling.
The Supreme Court Third Division, with Panganiban, J., delivered the challenged opinion and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision.

Facts

The subject is a parcel of land in Barangay Bangad, Binangonan, Rizal, with an area of 1,728 square meters and covered by Tax Declaration No. 26-0027.
The land was declared for taxation prior to 1954 in the name of Sinforoso Mendoza, who died in 1930 and was the father of RESPONDENT.
Petitioners are daughters of Margarito Mendoza, who was Sinforoso's brother and in whose name a tax declaration was later issued after cancellation of Sinforoso's declaration.
The parties stipulated identity of the land, familial relationships, respondent's occupation of the property, and a prior dispute during a cadastral survey in October 1979.
Evidence showed concurrent occupation and cultivation by both families and tax payments by respondent for years beginning 1932 and by Margarito beginning 1952.

Procedural History

The trial court rendered judgment declaring the parcel to belong to the heirs of Margarito Mendoza and ordered respondent to vacate and pay damages and costs.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and declared RESPONDENT rightful owner and possessor after finding deficiencies in the petitioners' documentary proof and accepting respondent's possession under Art. 538, Civil Code.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari in the Supreme Court contesting the CA's treatment of an affidavit and the CA's finding on possession since 1985.

Issues Presented

Whether the affidavit relied upon by petitioners was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule and as an ancient document and thus sufficient to prove title.
Whether RESPONDENT had acquired preferred possession under Art. 538, Civil Code through actual, physical, exclusive and continuous possession since 1985.
Whether RESPONDENT had acquired ownership through acquisitive prescription by possessing the land in the concept of owner and by paying taxes.

Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution, with costs against petitioners.
The Supreme Court held that the affidavit was not