Cequeña vs. Bolante

Tax declarations and receipts are merely prima facie proofs of ownership or possession, but when coupled with proof of actual, public, adverse, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession in the concept of owner for the statutory period, they can serve as the basis for a claim of ownership through acquisitive prescription. Mere occupation and cultivation of land, however long, cannot ripen into ownership unless coupled with hostility toward the true owner.

A 1,728-square-meter parcel of land in Barangay Bangad, Binangonan, Rizal, was originally declared for taxation in the name of Sinforoso Mendoza. Upon Sinforoso's death in 1930, his brother Margarito Mendoza took physical possession of a portion by cultivating it, while Sinforoso's daughter, respondent Honorata Mendoza Bolante, and her mother continued residing on the lot. In 1953, Margarito had the tax declaration transferred to his name via an affidavit purportedly signed by respondent and her mother. In 1985, respondent ousted Margarito's son from the land, prompting petitioners (Margarito's heirs) to seek recovery of possession and ownership.

• Original Declaration and Dual Possession: Prior to 1954, the disputed land was declared for taxation under Tax Declaration No. 26425 in the name of Sinforoso Mendoza. Sinforoso died in 1930. Thereafter, Margarito Mendoza (Sinforoso's brother) took possession and cultivated the land with his son, Miguel. Simultaneously, respondent and her mother continued residing on the property.
• Tax Payments and Transfer of Declaration: Upon coming of age in 1948, respondent paid realty taxes for the years 1932-1948. In 1953, based on an affidavit purportedly signed by respondent and her mother, the tax declaration was transferred to Margarito's name. Margarito paid realty taxes from 1952 to 1979.
• Ouster and Trial Court Ruling: In 1985, respondent physically ousted Miguel from the land. Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring them the lawful owners and ordering respondent to vacate and pay damages.
• Appellate Reversal: The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, finding that the affidavit's due execution was not proven and that respondent's actual, physical, exclusive, and continuous possession since 1985 gave her a better title under Article 538 of the Civil Code.

• Petitioners argued that the affidavit transferring the tax declaration should be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, contending it was a declaration against interest and a self-authenticating ancient document.
• Petitioners maintained that respondent's possession since 1985 was acquired through force and violence, barring her from being deemed the preferred possessor under Article 538 of the Civil Code.
• Petitioners asserted that the series of tax declarations and receipts in their father's name established their ownership of the entire parcel.

• Respondent countered that the affidavit was inadmissible hearsay because its due execution was not proven, the notary public was not presented, and the signatures were falsified given her mother's illiteracy.
• Respondent argued that she was the preferred possessor under Article 538 of the Civil Code due to her actual, physical, exclusive, and continuous possession.
• Respondent contended that she was presumed to possess the land with a just title under Article 541 of the Civil Code and was not obliged to prove such title.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the affidavit presented by petitioners is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
  • Whether respondent is the preferred possessor under Article 538 of the Civil Code despite allegedly taking possession through force or violence.
  • Whether respondent's possession ripened into ownership through acquisitive prescription, prevailing over petitioners' tax declarations.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that the affidavit is inadmissible. A declaration against interest requires the declarant to be dead, insane, or unable to testify; respondent is alive and denied the signature. It is not an ancient document because the purported signature of respondent's illiterate mother casts suspicion on its authenticity, failing the requirement that an ancient document be unblemished by any circumstance of suspicion. Furthermore, a notarized affidavit does not automatically become a public document and is not a mode of acquiring ownership.
  • The Court held that respondent is the preferred possessor. While possession cannot be acquired through force (meaning petitioners did not lose legal possession in 1985), petitioners' possession was not exclusive prior to 1985, as respondent and her mother also possessed the land. Under Article 538, respondent's possession is preferred because it dates back to her father's tax declaration in 1926, which is longer than petitioners' joint possession starting in 1952.
  • The Court ruled that respondent acquired ownership through ordinary acquisitive prescription. Her possession, and that of her father, was in the concept of owner—public, peaceful, and uninterrupted—since 1932, ripening into ownership by 1942 under Article 1134. Petitioners' tax declarations are merely prima facie evidence of ownership and, without actual public and adverse possession over the whole lot, do not prove ownership. Mere occupation and use, without hostility toward the true owner, will not confer title.

• Tax Declarations and Receipts as Evidence of Ownership — Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership but are merely prima facie proofs of ownership or possession of the property for which taxes have been paid. In the absence of actual public and adverse possession, they do not prove ownership. However, when coupled with proof of actual possession, they can be the basis of a claim for ownership through prescription.
• Acquisitive Prescription — Ownership of immovable property is acquired by ordinary prescription through possession for ten years. The possession must be in the concept of owner—public, adverse, peaceful, and uninterrupted. Mere occupation and use, however long, will not confer title by prescription unless coupled with the element of hostility toward the true owner.
• Declaration Against Interest — Before a document is admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule under this principle, the offeror must show: (a) the declarant is dead, insane, or unable to testify; (b) the declaration concerns a fact cognizable by the declarant; (c) at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was aware it was contrary to their interest; and (d) circumstances render improbable the existence of any motive to falsify. A declaration against interest is not admissible if the declarant is available to testify.
• Ancient Documents — An ancient document is one that is (1) more than 30 years old, (2) found in the proper custody, and (3) unblemished by any alteration or circumstance of suspicion. It must on its face appear to be genuine.

• "Tax receipts and declarations are prima facie proofs of ownership or possession of the property for which such taxes have been paid. Coupled with proof of actual possession of the property, they may become the basis of a claim for ownership."
• "By acquisitive prescription, possession in the concept of owner — public, adverse, peaceful and uninterrupted — may be converted to ownership. On the other hand, mere possession and occupation of land cannot ripen into ownership."
• "Not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule on authentication. Thus, an affidavit does not automatically become a public document just because it contains a notarial jurat."

• People's Bank and Trust Company v. Leonidas, 207 SCRA 164 — Followed. Affidavits are classified as hearsay evidence unless affiants are placed on the witness stand.
• Heirs of Placido Miranda v. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 368 — Followed. Anyone who can prove prior possession, regardless of its character, may recover such possession. Also followed on the concept of extraordinary prescription.
• Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 195 SCRA 38 — Followed. Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership.
• De Luna v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 276 — Followed. In the absence of actual public and adverse possession, the declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove ownership.

• Article 536, Civil Code — Possession cannot be acquired through force or violence. Applied to show that petitioners did not lose legal possession when ousted by force in 1985.
• Article 538, Civil Code — Prescribes the preference of possession. Applied to rule that respondent's possession, dating back to 1926, is preferred over petitioners' possession starting in 1952.
• Article 540, Civil Code — Only possession acquired and enjoyed in the concept of owner can serve as a title for acquiring dominion. Applied to determine ownership via acquisitive prescription.
• Article 541, Civil Code — Presumption of just title in possession. Applied but clarified as a disputable presumption that does not substitute for proof of ownership.
• Article 714, Civil Code — Ownership cannot be acquired by mere occupation. Applied to deny petitioners' claim based on cultivation of the land.
• Article 1134, Civil Code — Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession for ten years. Applied to rule that respondent's possession ripened into ownership.
• Rule 130, Sec. 38, Rules of Court — Declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule. Applied to exclude the affidavit because the declarant was available to testify.
• Rule 132, Sec. 20, Rules of Court — Authentication of private documents. Applied to require proof of due execution and authenticity of the affidavit.
• Rule 132, Sec. 21, Rules of Court — Ancient documents rule. Applied to reject the affidavit as an ancient document due to suspicious circumstances regarding the illiterate mother's signature.

Melo, Vitug, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ.