G.R. No. 147951 , December 14, 2009
Arsenio Olegario and Heirs of Aristoteles F. Olegario, represented by Carmelita Guzman-Olegario, Petitioners, vs. Pedro C. Mari, represented by Lilia C. Mari-Camba, Respondent.

FACTS

Juan Mari, father of respondent Pedro Mari, declared ownership over a parcel of land in Mangatarem for tax purposes as early as 1916, possessing it by fencing, planting trees, and constructing a house. The land was surveyed in 1950-1951 as a 897-square meter residential lot. In 1974, Juan Mari sold the property to respondent. Meanwhile, in 1947, Wenceslao Olegario, father of petitioner Arsenio Olegario, filed a tax declaration for a 50-square meter parcel, with Juan Mari as a southern boundary. In 1961, Wenceslao executed a Deed of Quitclaim for this 50-square meter property in favor of Arsenio. During the 1961-1962 cadastral survey, the subject property was identified as Lot Nos. 17526, 17553, and 14356, with Wenceslao disputing Juan Mari’s claim over Lots 17526 and 17553. In 1988, respondent filed a protest with the DENR against petitioners for encroachment, which was decided in respondent’s favor, becoming final and executory. In 1989, Arsenio Olegario amended his tax declaration to increase the area from 50 to 341 square meters and to specify Cadastral Lot No. 17526. In 1990, respondent filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Annulment of Tax Declaration. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring them owners of Lots 17553 and 17526 and dismissing the complaint on grounds of prescription and failure to prove ownership. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, declaring respondent the lawful owner of all three lots.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC and declaring respondent the owner of the disputed lots, particularly regarding the appreciation of evidence, laches, and acquisitive prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that petitioners’ evidence of possession and ownership was weak and failed to clearly prove possession of the disputed lots prior to 1965, when they constructed a hollow block fence. In contrast, respondent and his predecessor demonstrated prior possession in the concept of owner since 1916 through tax declarations, improvements, and acts of ownership. The Court ruled that petitioners’ possession was not in the concept of an owner but was by mere tolerance or was illegal from its inception, and thus could not ripen into ownership by acquisitive prescription. The Court also found that respondent’s action was not barred by laches, as he timely asserted his rights upon discovering petitioners’ amended tax declaration in 1989. The petitioners did not acquire ownership by prescription, and the respondent remained the lawful owner of Lot Nos. 17526, 17553, and 14356.