GR 137944; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137944; April 6, 2000
FERNANDA MENDOZA CEQUEÑA and RUPERTA MENDOZA LIRIO, petitioners, vs. HONORATA MENDOZA BOLANTE, respondent.
FACTS
The dispute involves a parcel of land in Binangonan, Rizal, originally declared for taxation in the name of Sinforoso Mendoza, father of respondent Honorata Bolante. After Sinforoso’s death in 1930, the tax declaration was cancelled and transferred to Margarito Mendoza, Sinforoso’s brother and father of petitioners Fernanda Cequeña and Ruperta Lirio, based on an affidavit. The respondent has been the actual occupant of the land. During a cadastral survey in 1975, a dispute over ownership arose between respondent and Miguel Mendoza, the petitioners’ brother. The petitioners filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession, claiming ownership through their father Margarito based on the affidavit and subsequent tax declarations. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them as owners and ordering the respondent to vacate and pay damages.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the affidavit, which facilitated the transfer of the tax declaration, is admissible and sufficient to prove ownership; and (2) whether the respondent’s possession can ripen into ownership by acquisitive prescription.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision declaring respondent Honorata Bolante the rightful owner. On the first issue, the Court held the affidavit was inadmissible as hearsay. The general rule is that affidavits are hearsay unless the affiant is presented as a witness. The petitioners failed to present the notary public, any attesting witness, or expert testimony to authenticate the signatures of respondent and her mother on the affidavit. The respondent’s denial, coupled with her testimony that her mother was illiterate and that she was never called “Leonor” as stated in the affidavit, further undermined its credibility. It could not be considered a declaration against interest or a self-authenticating ancient document under the circumstances.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the respondent’s possession was in the concept of an owner—public, peaceful, and uninterrupted since 1985—which is a vital component of acquisitive prescription. While tax declarations are prima facie evidence of ownership or possession, the petitioners’ tax receipts and declarations, without proof of actual possession, were insufficient. In contrast, the respondent’s actual, physical, exclusive, and continuous possession, coupled with her own tax payments, constituted a stronger claim. Her possession enjoyed the presumption of a possessor in good faith under Article 538 of the Civil Code. Therefore, her open and adverse possession for the required period could ripen into ownership, giving her a better right over the disputed property.