G.R. No. 148943, August 15, 2002
AGNES GAPACAN, EUGENIA GAPACAN-KIAKI and MARILYN GAPACAN, petitioners, vs. MARIA GAPACAN OMIPET, respondent.

FACTS

Paicat Gapacan, a native Igorot, was the original possessor of an unregistered land of 1.0111 hectares in Abatan, Bauko, Mt. Province, declared for taxation in 1931. He had two children: Maria Gapacan Omipet (respondent) and Antonio Gapacan. Antonio left for Benguet, while Maria remained, cared for their father until his death during WWII, and cultivated the land. Antonio later married Agnes Gapacan and had daughters Eugenia and Marilyn (petitioners). After retiring, Antonio returned to Abatan. On June 15, 1954, Antonio executed an “Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property,” indicating the property was transferred to him by his sister Maria, thumbmarked by her husband Pedro Omipet on her behalf. Based on this, Antonio had the property declared in his name for taxation in 1954. Since then, petitioners occupied and cultivated the land. In April 1992, Maria hired workers to clear portions of the land but was stopped by petitioners, who also filed a Forcible Entry case against Maria’s granddaughter, which resulted in a decision in petitioners’ favor due to the defendants’ failure to answer. On December 9, 1992, Maria, then an elderly illiterate woman, filed a complaint for Quieting of Title, claiming the land was part of her inheritance from her parents, which she had tax-declared in 1948 (covering 1,188 sqm), and that she merely lent the rice lands to petitioners when Antonio returned. The trial court dismissed her complaint, finding her testimony and witnesses unconvincing and ruling petitioners had the right of possession. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, declaring the property (Lot 1 in the Sketch Plan) as common property of both parties and ordered its equitable partition. It nullified Maria’s 1948 tax declaration (for unlawfully excluding Antonio), Antonio’s 1954 tax declaration and subsequent ones (as based on a void Affidavit of Transfer not signed by Maria), and found both parties in bad faith regarding possession. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the disputed unregistered land as the common property of the parties and ordering its partition, instead of upholding the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint for quieting of title and its recognition of petitioners’ right of possession.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The disputed property, originally owned by Paicat Gapacan, upon his death passed to his only heirs, Maria and Antonio, as co-owners. Neither could claim absolute ownership to the exclusion of the other. The Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property, which was the basis for Antonio’s tax declarations, was void as it was not signed by Maria. Both parties acted in bad faith: Maria by securing a tax declaration in 1948 to the exclusion of her brother, and Antonio by fraudulently causing the execution of the Affidavit of Transfer. Thus, prior to partition, the property was held in co-ownership by Maria and Antonio, and upon Antonio’s death, by petitioners as his heirs together with Maria. The action for quieting of title was proper to remove the cloud created by the void documents. The appellate court correctly declared the property as common and ordered its equitable partition.