Spouses Ponce vs. Aldanese

In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, factual findings—especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals—are conclusive absent any of the recognized exceptions; tax declarations, while not conclusive proof of ownership, are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.

Respondent Jesus Aldanese and Teodoro Aldanese, Jr. are brothers. Jesus inherited Lot No. 6890, an unregistered parcel in Dugo-an, Sibonga, Cebu, from their father, Teodoro Aldanese, Sr., while Teodoro Jr. owned Lot No. 11203 in Masa, Dumanjug, Cebu. Petitioners Spouses Eugenio Ponce and Emiliana Nerosa purchased land from Teodoro Jr. under a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 13, 1976, which described a parcel in Masa, Dumanjug, Cebu, covered by Tax Declaration No. 08765. The controversy concerns the possession of Lot No. 6890, which remained unregistered.

Jesus Aldanese inherited Lot No. 6890, an unregistered parcel of 3.9030 hectares in Dugo-an, Sibonga, Cebu, from his father, Teodoro Aldanese, Sr., in 1973. He paid real property taxes from that time under Tax Declaration No. 13003 in his name. TD 13003 was later cancelled and TD 13163-A was issued by the Municipal Assessor of Sibonga, still in Jesus's name as owner and possessor. The lot's boundaries were: North, River; South, Lot No. 7486; East, River; West, boundary of Dumanjug, Cebu. Jesus stayed in the city because of his business.

In August 1996, Jesus discovered that Spouses Eugenio Ponce and Emiliana Nerosa had encroached upon the entire portion of his lot. He demanded that they vacate and return the land. The Spouses Ponce refused, claiming that Lot No. 6890 was part of the land they bought from Jesus's brother, Teodoro Aldanese, Jr. Jesus asked Teodoro Jr. about the purported sale. Teodoro Jr. denied selling Jesus's land and explained that what he sold to the Spouses Ponce was Lot No. 11203, a parcel he owned in Masa, Dumanjug, Cebu, adjacent to Lot No. 6890. He showed Jesus a photocopy of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 13, 1976.

Jesus and the Spouses Ponce met at the barangay for conciliation. The Spouses Ponce nonetheless refused to vacate. During the barangay proceedings, they admitted encroaching on Lot No. 6890 because Lot No. 11203, which they bought from Teodoro Jr. in Masa, Dumanjug, Cebu, contained less than the area stated in the Deed of Absolute Sale. They remained firm in possessing the subject land. As a result, Jesus filed a Complaint for recovery of possession and damages with receivership before the RTC.

During trial, Jesus testified that he owned Lot No. 6890 and that it was not part of the land sold by Teodoro Jr. to the Spouses Ponce. Teodoro Jr. corroborated him, stating that only Lot No. 11203, which he owned and inherited and which was situated in Masa, Dumanjug, Cebu, was sold to the Spouses Ponce in the Deed of Absolute Sale. To prove ownership, Jesus presented TD 13163-A and two certificates dated November 7, 1997 and November 11, 1997 issued by the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Sibonga, Cebu, stating that he was the declared owner and had been paying realty taxes as early as 1980. Lot No. 6890 also remained untitled as evidenced by a Certification dated October 28, 1997 issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Land Management Sector of Argao, Cebu. The Spouses Ponce maintained that the subject land was part of the entire 10 hectares they bought from Teodoro Jr. They asserted that a survey conducted after the sale showed about seven hectares of the sold property in Masa, Dumanjug, Cebu, while the remaining three hectares pertained to Lot No. 6890 in Sibonga, Cebu. They further asserted that Teodoro Jr., as owner, had the right to sell the subject land pursuant to the Deed of Confirmation of Oral Partition dated April 3, 1975 executed by the Aldanese siblings. The Spouses Ponce presented TD 22-006688 to support their claim, but it did not state the lot number and the land described was located in Masa, Dumanjug, Cebu with different boundaries.

The RTC found that Jesus sufficiently established ownership of Lot No. 6890 so as to be entitled to its possession. The CA likewise found that the land sold to the Ponces did not include Lot No. 6890 because the Deed of Absolute Sale specifically stated that it covered only the land in Masa, Dumanjug, Cebu, and that Jesus sufficiently proved ownership through the tax declaration in his name.

• Ownership under Deed of Absolute Sale: Petitioners maintained that Lot No. 6890 is part of the 10-hectare land they bought from Teodoro Aldanese, Jr. under the March 13, 1976 Deed of Absolute Sale; a post-sale survey allegedly showed about seven hectares in Masa, Dumanjug, Cebu and the remaining three hectares pertained to Lot No. 6890 in Sibonga, Cebu.
• Deed of Confirmation of Oral Partition: Petitioners asserted that Teodoro Jr., as owner, had the right to sell the subject land pursuant to the Deed of Confirmation of Oral Partition dated April 3, 1975 executed by the Aldanese siblings.
• Good Faith Possession and Prescription: Petitioners argued that even assuming Lot No. 6890 was not included in the sale, they are entitled to the land as possessors in good faith since 1976 or for more than 20 years, and that the complaint should have been dismissed on prescription.
• Insufficiency of Tax Declarations: Petitioners claimed that the tax declarations in Jesus's name are not sufficient proof of ownership or possession, consistent with Marcelo vs. Silverio.
• Attorney's Fees: Petitioners claimed that the award of attorney's fees in favor of Jesus has no basis.

• Scope of Review under Rule 45: Whether the issues raised by petitioners are factual questions beyond the Supreme Court's review under Rule 45 absent any exception.
• Ownership and Possession: Whether Jesus is the absolute owner of Lot No. 6890 to be entitled to possession thereof.
• Attorney's Fees: Whether there is basis for the award of attorney's fees to Jesus.

• Scope of Review under Rule 45: No. The issues raised are factual, and Rule 45 limits review to questions of law; petitioners failed to show any recognized exception.
• Ownership and Possession: Yes. Preponderant evidence supports the concurrent findings that Jesus is the lawful owner of Lot No. 6890 and entitled to possession; the Deed of Absolute Sale did not include the lot, and petitioners failed to prove ownership or good faith.
• Attorney's Fees: Yes. The award is in order because Jesus was left with no other option but to file the complaint.

• Scope of Review under Rule 45: Rule 45, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law. The Court is not a trier of facts and cannot analyze or weigh evidence already considered below. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; a question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts, or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence, including the credibility of witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probabilities of the situation. The issues on ownership, good faith possession, and attorney's fees are factual. Petitioners failed to prove that the petition falls under any of the recognized exceptions. The RTC and CA findings coincided, and such factual findings are entitled to great weight and respect and are final and conclusive on the Court.
• Ownership and Possession: In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, who must establish the case by preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is evidence of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition, leading the trier of facts to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its non-existence. Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant to controvert it. Jesus presented TD 13163-A and certificates dated November 7, 1997 and November 11, 1997 from the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Sibonga, Cebu, stating that he was the declared owner and had been paying realty taxes as early as 1980. While a tax declaration is not conclusive proof of ownership, it is an indication that the holder possesses the property in the concept of an owner, for nobody in his or her right mind would pay taxes for property not in his or her actual or constructive possession. Silverio was distinguished because the tax declaration there was issued in 2005, a year after the complaint, and respondents did not adduce other evidence of consistent tax payments; here, Jesus paid taxes as early as 1980 and was recognized as owner. The Spouses Ponce failed to present any proof of ownership such as payment of real property taxes or a certificate of title in their names over Lot No. 6890. Their TD 22-006688 did not state the lot number, and the land described was located in Masa, Dumanjug, Cebu with different boundaries. The Deed of Absolute Sale made no mention of Lot No. 6890, which is located in Sibonga, Cebu; it covered a parcel in Masa, Dumanjug, Cebu, surrounded by different boundaries and covered by Tax Declaration No. 08765. The Deed of Confirmation of Oral Partition did not prove that Lot No. 6890 was included in the purchased land. Teodoro Jr. testified that the land covered by the Deed of Absolute Sale did not include Lot No. 6890; he toured the Ponces around the land before the sale and identified the cemented monuments marking its boundaries. The Spouses Ponce admitted that the whole parcel they purchased from Teodoro Jr. is in Masa, Dumanjug, Cebu; only during cross-examination did they claim Lot No. 6890 to be part of the land sold to them. Thus, in the absence of competent evidence that Lot No. 6890 is covered by the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Ponces have no right to possess the property, much less in the concept of an owner. They cannot be deemed possessors in good faith since they were aware that the subject land was not part of the land Teodoro Jr. sold to them. Assuming that Teodoro Jr. sold Lot No. 6890 to the Ponces, the sale would be invalid because it was owned by Jesus; no one can give what one does not have, and a seller can only sell what he or she owns, or that which he or she does not own but has authority to transfer, while a buyer can only acquire what the seller can legally transfer.
• Attorney's Fees: The award of attorney's fees was fully passed upon by the RTC and the CA. Its grant is in order since Jesus was left with no other option but to file the RTC complaint against the Spouses Ponce.

• Rule 45 limited to questions of law — In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the Supreme Court is generally limited to reviewing only errors of law and is not a trier of facts. It will not analyze or weigh evidence already considered in the proceedings below. Factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great weight and respect and are final and conclusive absent any of the recognized exceptions. The exceptions are: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. Applied: the Ponces failed to prove any exception, and the RTC and CA findings coincided.
• Question of law vs. question of fact — A question of law exists when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts, or when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probabilities of the situation. Applied: the issues on ownership, good faith possession, and attorney's fees were factual and beyond Rule 45 review.
• Tax declarations as indicia of possession — Although tax declarations or realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of property for taxation manifests one's desire to obtain title, announces an adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, and shows an intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government. Applied: Jesus's TD 13163-A and tax payments as early as 1980 supported his claim; Silverio was distinguished because there the tax declaration was issued after the complaint and no consistent payment was shown.
• Preponderance of evidence — In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, who must establish the case by preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is evidence of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition; it is proof that leads the trier of facts to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its non-existence. Once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant to controvert it, otherwise a verdict must be returned in favor of the plaintiff. Applied: Jesus made a prima facie case, and the Ponces failed to controvert it.
• No one can give what one does not have — A seller can only sell what he or she owns, or that which he or she does not own but has authority to transfer, and a buyer can only acquire what the seller can legally transfer. Applied: assuming Teodoro Jr. sold Lot No. 6890 to the Ponces, the sale would be invalid because the lot was owned by Jesus.
• Possessor in good faith — The Spouses Ponce could not be deemed possessors in good faith because they were aware that the subject land was not part of the land Teodoro Jr. sold to them. Applied: their claim of good faith possession since 1976 failed.

• "In a petition for review under Rule 45, the Court is generally limited to reviewing only errors of law." — This states the threshold limitation that disposed of the petition, because the ownership, possession, and attorney's fees issues were factual.
• "Indeed, while the tax declaration is not conclusive proof of ownership of Jesus over the subject land, it is an indication however that he possesses the property in the concept of an owner for nobody in his or her right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his or her actual or constructive possession." — This articulates the Court's canonical formulation of the tax-declaration doctrine and explains why Jesus's tax payments supported his claim.
• "As correctly found by the RTC and the CA, the Deed of Absolute Sale made no mention of Lot No. 6890, the subject land, which is located in Sibonga, Cebu." — This is a key factual and documentary basis for denying the Ponces' claim that the disputed lot was included in their purchase.
• "Besides, assuming that Teodoro Jr. sold Lot No. 6890 to the Ponces, the sale would be invalid as it was owned by Jesus." — This applies the principle that a non-owner cannot transfer ownership, independently defeating the Ponces' claim even if the deed had covered the lot.

• Marcelo vs. Silverio, 709 Phil. 662 (2013) — Cited by petitioners for the proposition that tax declarations are not sufficient proof of ownership; distinguished because in Silverio the tax declaration was issued in 2005, a year after the complaint, and respondents did not adduce other evidence of consistent tax payments, unlike Jesus who paid taxes as early as 1980.
• DST Movers Corporation vs. People's General Insurance Corporation, 778 Phil. 235 (2016), citing Cheesman vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 271 Phil. 89 (1991) — Cited for the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact, which the Court used to hold that the issues raised were factual and beyond Rule 45.
• Heirs of Santiago vs. Heirs of Santiago, 452 Phil. 238 (2003) — Cited for the rule that tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership but are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner.
• Heirs of Alido vs. Campano, G.R. No. 226065, July 29, 2019 — Cited as authority reiterating the Heirs of Santiago doctrine on tax declarations as indicia of possession.
• Heirs of Lopez vs. Development Bank of the Philippines, 747 Phil. 427 (2014) — Cited for the rule that no one can give what one does not have and that a seller can only sell what he owns or has authority to transfer.

• Rule 45, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari, and the petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. Applied: the Court dismissed the petition because the issues raised were factual and no exception applied.

Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson), Inting, Gaerlan, and Rosario, JJ., concurred. Rosario, J. was designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.