G.R. No. 146556 . April 19, 2006.
DANILO L. PAREL, Petitioner, vs. SIMEON B. PRUDENCIO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Simeon Prudencio filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against petitioner Danilo Parel. Prudencio alleged he is the sole owner of a two-storey house in Baguio City, constructed with his own funds from 1972 to 1975. Out of magnanimity, as his wife was the older sister of Florentino Parel (Danilo’s father), he allowed Florentino’s family to occupy the second floor during construction and later to reside there temporarily. After Florentino migrated abroad in 1986, Prudencio claimed Danilo Parel unlawfully entered and occupied the ground floor without consent, refusing to vacate despite demands.
Petitioner Danilo Parel countered that his late father, Florentino, was a co-owner of the house. He asserted the ground floor pertained to his parents, as Florentino was an allocatee of the land where the house stood and contributed resources and supervision to its construction. Parel claimed his possession was with his father’s instruction and Prudencio’s knowledge, characterizing the demand to vacate as an attempt to deprive his family of their co-ownership rights.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court and declaring respondent Prudencio as the sole owner of the house, thereby ordering petitioner Parel to vacate.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that respondent Prudencio is the sole owner of the house and is entitled to recover possession. The legal logic centered on the preponderance of evidence and the credibility of proof of ownership. The Court found that Prudencio sufficiently established his sole ownership through tax declarations and official receipts of tax payments under his name, which, while not conclusive, constitute strong evidence of ownership when accompanied by a clear explanation of possession. Prudencio also presented an affidavit executed by Florentino Parel himself, declaring Prudencio as the sole owner and builder of the house. This affidavit was deemed a declaration against the interest of Florentino and his heirs, and therefore admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
In contrast, petitioner Parel failed to substantiate his claim of co-ownership. He presented no credible evidence, such as receipts or documents, to prove his father’s alleged financial contributions to the construction. His reliance on his father’s allocation of the land was insufficient, as allocation does not equate to ownership and does not automatically confer co-ownership of the structure built thereon. The Court emphasized that possession alone does not prove ownership, and Parel’s possession was merely tolerated, which cannot ripen into ownership. Consequently, Prudencio, as the established owner, had the right to recover possession from Parel, who was occupying the property without any legal right.