G.R. No. 139524 - Santos vs. Santos

Case Summary (G.R. No. 139524)

Timeline and Procedural History

Isidra Santos died intestate on April 1, 1967, leaving Ladislao and Eliseo as her surviving heirs. Ownership and possession of the Isidra property evolved through various tax declarations under different names, with incidents including a 1969 combined deed of partition allegedly conveying the entire Isidra property to Eliseo, subsequent transfers to Virgilio Santos (Eliseo’s son) and then to Philip Santos. Ladislao filed a complaint for judicial partition on May 13, 1993. The Regional Trial Court dismissed his complaint, ruling failure to prove entitlement and noting acquisitive prescription. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, declaring Ladislao and Eliseo entitled to equal pro indiviso shares. The petition for review challenges the CA’s ruling.

Applicable Law and Legal Issues

The case is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership and prescription, and the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure relating to judicial partition. The issues raised include: (1) the validity of transfers of the Isidra property from Eliseo to Virgilio and then to Philip Santos; (2) whether the judicial partition action was barred by acquisitive prescription or estoppel by laches; (3) the legal effect of tax declarations and secondary evidence in property ownership disputes.

Factual Background: Ownership and Possession of Subject Property

The property originally belonged to Isidra Santos, who had it surveyed and titled under Tax Declaration No. 655, later changed to Tax Declaration No. 1115. Upon Isidra's death, Ladislao and Eliseo purportedly inherited the property. In 1969, a combined deed of partition was allegedly executed between Ladislao and Eliseo (and their spouses) partitioning the larger estate and conveying the Isidra property entirely to Eliseo. Eliseo then transferred the property to his son Virgilio, who subsequently sold it to Philip Santos in 1980. Despite these transfers and related tax declarations in Virgilio’s and Philip’s names, Ladislao never relinquished his claim until filing the judicial partition.

Trial Court's Findings and Ruling

The trial court dismissed Ladislao’s complaint on these grounds: (1) Ownership for taxation was registered in Isidra’s name only, not reflecting co-ownership; (2) No evidence of fraud or misrepresentation tainting the transfer of tax declarations; (3) The alleged foundational documents were not conclusively proven; (4) The destruction of assessor’s records by fire precluded confirming the documents; (5) The lapse of time raised the bar of acquisitive prescription. The trial court thus ruled in favor of Eliseo and Philip Santos.

Court of Appeals Decision and Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that Ladislao and Eliseo remain co-owners of the Isidra property and are each entitled to an equal pro indiviso share. The CA found that the alleged combined deed of partition transferring the entire property to Eliseo was not sufficiently proven, as the original document was not produced and only inadmissible secondary evidence was presented. Tax declarations under Virgilio’s and Philip’s names were held insufficient to prove ownership. The CA further held that the principles of co-ownership and legal protections against unilateral acquisition applied.

First Legal Issue: Validity of Transfer Documents and Evidentiary Requirements

The Court emphasized the rule under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence: the best evidence of a document is the original. Secondary evidence, such as testimonies about the combined deed of partition, was inadmissible without showing the loss, destruction, or unavailability of all original copies, including those held by the notary public. The petitioners failed to prove the loss of notarized copies despite evidence that one copy filed with the Provincial Assessor’s office was destroyed by fire. Testimonies by Virginia Santos and Philip Santos constituted inadmissible secondary evidence because the originals or copies should have been producible, particularly from the notary’s retained documents. Consequently, no valid proof was presented that Ladislao and Eliseo had executed a combined deed transferring the entire Isidra property exclusively to Eliseo.

Tax Declarations Are Not Conclusive Proof of Ownership

The Court reaffirmed that tax declarations and tax receipts are insufficient to establish ownership or right of possession. The presence of a tax declaration in Virgilio’s or Philip’s name only evidences their declaration for taxation, not legal title. The testimony of the municipal assessor was also rejected as conclusive proof since the assessor took office after the purported events and had no direct knowledge of the original documents supporting the transfer of tax declarations.

Application of the Doctrine “Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet”

Since Virgilio Santos never acquired valid title to the Isidra property (due to failure to produce valid transfer documents and non-recognition of co-ownership), he could not sell the property to Philip Santos. The legal principle “nemo dat quod non habet” (no one can give what one does not have) was applied, invalidating the alleged sale to Philip.

Second Legal Issue: Applicability of Acquisitive Prescription and Estoppel by Laches

The petitioners argued that possession by Virgilio Santos from 1967 and Philip Santos from 1980 had ripened into ownership through ten years of uninterrupted possession, thus barring Ladislao’s claim and action for partition through ordinary acquisitive prescription. They also invoked estoppel by laches due to apparent inaction.

The Court, however, ruled that under Article 494 of the Civil Code, acquisitive prescription does not run against a co-owner who acknowledges the co-ownership expressly or impliedly. Since there was no proof that Eliseo Santos repudiated the co-ownership, and Lad

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 139524)

Case Background and Procedural History

This case is a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, assailing the January 8, 1999 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 48576) which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal (Branch 76).
The RTC originally declared that respondents Ladislao M. Santos and Eliseo M. Santos were entitled to one-half (1/2) pro indiviso shares in the property formerly owned by Isidra M. Santos.
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision, ruling in favor of the petitioners Philip C. Santos and heirs of Eliseo M. Santos, declaring certain tax declarations and a deed of sale in Philip Santos' name as inefficacious with regard to the one-half ownership share of Ladislao Santos.
The Court of Appeals ordered the judicial partition accordingly following Rule 69 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The present petition raises various issues challenging the legality of the conveyances and the entitlement to the property shares.

Facts of the Case

Isidra M. Santos died intestate on April 1, 1967, leaving no issue, survived by two brothers, Ladislao Santos and Eliseo Santos.
The Isidra property is located in San Mateo, Rizal, along General Luna Street, covered by Tax Declaration No. 655 first, later cancelled and replaced by other declarations.
Ladislao Santos filed a complaint for judicial partition in 1993, discovering that the Isidra property had been declared under the name of Philip Santos on the basis of a deed of absolute sale from Virgilio Santos (Eliseo’s son).
Petitioners claimed exclusivity over the Isidra property based on tax declarations and the "Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Residential Land" executed in 1980 by Virgilio Santos in favor of Philip Santos.
Respondents argued that the Isidra property was inherited by Ladislao and Eliseo and partitioned by a combined deed of partition in 1969, which conveyed the entire Isidra property to Eliseo, who subsequently donated the property to his son Virgilio Santos.
Virginia Santos, wife of Virgilio, testified to the family’s possession and the alleged notarized agreement of transfer.
The trial court dismissed Ladislao’s complaint, citing lack of proof, validity of transfer, and application of acquisitive prescription.

Issues Presented

The issues raised by petitioners can be consolidated into two main concerns:
1. The validity and legality of the property transfer from Eliseo Santos to Virgilio Santos, and then to Philip Santos.
2. Whether the judicial partition action by Ladislao is barred by acquisitive prescription, estoppel by laches, or if his right to file for partition is already prescribed.

Court of Appeals Findings

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Ladislao and Eliseo, affirming their co-ownership of the Isidra property.
It found that