G.R. No. 119870 December 23, 1999
DR. BIENVENIDO B. GESMUNDO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the Gesmundo heirs, filed a complaint for annulment of documents and quieting of title over a 7,091-square meter parcel of land in San Pablo City. They claimed ownership through inheritance from their father, Anastacio Gesmundo, supported by tax declarations from 1937 to 1979. They alleged that respondents, through record tampering, cancelled their tax declaration. Respondent Maximina Briz claimed ownership of the same lot, asserting it was inherited from her grandmother, Anastacia Gesmundo, and that “Anastacio” in the tax declarations was a clerical error for “Anastacia.” She presented identical tax declarations and proof of tax payments. Respondents Brion claimed an adjoining 11,094-square meter property, inherited from their grandfather, supported by their own tax declarations.
An ocular inspection revealed the land claimed by petitioners was actually located outside and west of the property possessed by Briz and was occupied by the Brions. The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of both respondents, declaring Briz and the Brions as the lawful owners of their respective properties and awarding attorney’s fees against petitioners.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s declaration of ownership in favor of respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. Regarding the 7,091-square meter property, the Court affirmed ownership in favor of respondent Briz. The legal logic centered on the strength of her evidence of possession and ownership. Briz presented not only the same series of tax declarations as petitioners but also a notarized 1956 caretaker agreement and continuous tax payments from 1945 to 1991. These acts constituted proof of possession and a claim of ownership in the concept of an owner, which petitioners failed to sufficiently rebut. The Court found no reversible error in the lower courts’ factual findings on this matter.
However, the Court set aside the declaration of ownership in favor of the Brions over the 11,094-square meter property. The Brions’ claim was primarily based on tax declarations and an affidavit of adjudication from their predecessor. Critically, the affidavit was executed only in 1980, and they failed to present clear evidence of possession for the required period to acquire ownership through acquisitive prescription. Their tax payments commenced only in 1972. Furthermore, a key affidavit presented was deemed hearsay as the affiant did not testify. Thus, the Brions failed to substantiate their claim of ownership by preponderance of evidence. The awards for attorney’s fees were affirmed.