Case Summary (G.R. No. 137944)
Factual Background
Prior to 1954 the land was declared for taxation under Sinforoso Mendoza, who died in 1930. An affidavit executed in 1953 purported to transfer the tax declaration to Margarito Mendoza, Sinforoso’s brother and the petitioners’ father. Both families occupied and cultivated the land: the respondent and her mother continuously from the 1930s, and petitioners’ relatives intermittently thereafter. A cadastral survey on October 15, 1979 revealed a dispute between respondent and petitioners’ brother Miguel Mendoza.
Procedural History
The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners, declaring them rightful owners, ordering respondent’s ejectment, awarding P10,000 in actual damages, and imposing costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside that judgment, declared respondent the rightful owner and possessor, and maintained costs against petitioners. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution (decision in April 2000).
- Civil Code: Article 536 (force or violence), Article 538 (preferred possessor), Article 539 (recovery of possession), Article 540 (concept of owner for prescription), Article 541 (presumption of better right), Article 1134 (ordinary prescription).
- Rules of Court on evidence: Rule 130 Section 38 (hearsay), Rule 132 Sections 20–21 (ancient documents, affidavits).
Court of Appeals’ Findings on the Affidavit
The CA held that the 1953 affidavit was hearsay because neither affiants nor the notary were presented to prove due execution. Respondent denied her and her mother’s signatures—her mother being illiterate—and no expert or competent witness authenticated the document. The CA also found the affidavit did not qualify as an ancient document, as it bore suspicious indicia inconsistent with the mother’s literacy status.
Court of Appeals’ Findings on Possession
Relying on Article 538, the CA determined respondent was the preferred possessor, having been in notorious, actual, exclusive and uninterrupted possession since 1985. It deemed petitioners’ possession nonexclusive and secondary to respondent’s continuous occupation and payment of realty taxes dating back to 1932.
Issues on Review
- Whether the affidavit executed by Eduarda Apiado and respondent is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule or as an ancient document.
- Whether respondent’s actual and exclusive possession since 1985, under Article 538, established a presumption of better right to ownership.
First Issue: Admissibility of the Affidavit
Affidavits are ordinarily hearsay unless the affiant testifies (People’s Bank & Trust Co. v. Leonidas; Vallarta v. Court of Appeals). A declaration against interest is inadmissible if the declarant is available to testify; here the respondent denied her signature. An ancient document must be over thirty years old, in proper custody, unaltered and facially genuine; suspicion arose when an illiterate woman purportedly signed in cursive. Not every notarized instrument is self-authenticating. The affidavit thus failed both authentication and hearsay-exception requirements.
Second Issue: Preference of Possession
Article 538 entitles the person in notorious, actual, exclusive and continuous possession to presumptive ownership. Petitioners argue respondent’s possession was through force, invoking Article 536; but dispossessed persons retain legal possession until lawfully ousted (Ayala de Roxas v. Maglonso). Both families held overlapping, adverse possession, but respondent’s claim dates from her tax-declared
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 137944)
Facts of the Case
- The subject is a 1,728-square-meter parcel in Barangay Bangad, Binangonan, Rizal, covered by Tax Declaration No. 26-0027.
- Prior to 1954, the land was declared in the name of Sinforoso Mendoza (died 1930), father of respondent Honorata Mendoza Bolante.
- On affidavit, the tax declaration in Sinforoso’s name was cancelled and re-declared under Margarito Mendoza, Sinforoso’s brother and petitioners’ father.
- Respondent and Miguel Mendoza (petitioners’ brother) disputed ownership during the cadastral survey on October 15, 1975.
- Both families occupied and cultivated the land: respondent and her mother continuously since the 1930s; Margarito and his heirs (petitioners) intermittently since the 1950s.
Trial Court Decision
- The Regional Trial Court ruled for petitioners, declaring them rightful owners and ordering respondent to vacate and pay P10,000 in actual damages plus costs.
- Finding was based on tax declaration in Margarito’s name, petitioners’ continuous cultivation, and absence of a valid claim by respondent.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- The CA reversed the trial court, declaring respondent the rightful owner and possessor.
- It held the affidavit transferring title from Sinforoso to Margarito was unauthenticated hearsay and thus inadmissible.
- It accorded higher weight to respondent’s actual, exclusive, continuous, and adverse possession since 1985 under Article 538, Civil Code.
Issues Presented
- Whether the affidavit transferring the tax declaration is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule or as an ancient document.
- Whether respondent’s actual, exclusive,