G.R. No. 158385 ; February 12, 2010
Modesto Palali, Petitioner, vs. Juliet Awisan, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact Gregorio Awisan, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Juliet Awisan filed an action for quieting of title against petitioner Modesto Palali, claiming ownership of a 6.6698-hectare land covered by Tax Declaration No. 147. She alleged that Palali encroached on and occupied the northern portion of this property and surreptitiously declared it in his name under Tax Declaration No. 31793, covering 848 square meters (200 sqm residential and 648 sqm rootcrop land). Awisan prayed to be declared the rightful owner of the northern portion, for cancellation of Palali’s tax declaration, and for his removal. During trial, respondent’s representatives alleged an additional encroachment on the southern portion, which was not included in the original complaint. Palali defended his ownership, asserting that he and his predecessors-in-interest had openly, continuously, and physically possessed the subject property since time immemorial, introduced improvements, and declared it for taxation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, adjudging Palali as the owner and lawful possessor based on his overwhelming proof of actual possession and the weakness of respondent’s evidence, which relied solely on tax declarations. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, awarding the subject land to Awisan (excluding Palali’s residential area) and ordering him to vacate the rootcrop land. The CA erroneously treated the entire 6.6698-hectare property as the subject of the case, finding Palali failed to prove possession of the entire area and giving greater weight to respondent’s documents.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC decision and awarding the subject property to respondent, based on a mistaken understanding of the subject property and the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the RTC Decision. The Court held that the CA proceeded from an erroneous understanding that the subject property was the entire 6.6698-hectare land of respondent. The subject of the case, as alleged in the complaint, was only the northern portion allegedly encroached upon by Palali. The CA incorrectly faulted Palali for not proving possession of the entire 6.6698 hectares and disregarded his tax declaration for covering only 848 square meters. The Supreme Court emphasized that a person in actual possession of a piece of land under a claim of ownership enjoys the presumption of ownership. The burden is on the plaintiff to rely on the strength of his own title, not on the weakness of the defendant’s. Respondent failed to overcome this presumption. Her claim was supported only by tax declarations and tax receipts, which are not conclusive proof of ownership. In contrast, Palali presented overwhelming proof of actual, open, continuous, and physical possession of the subject property since time immemorial, coupled with his tax declaration. The Court also noted that respondent’s attempt to include the southern portion during trial without amending the complaint was improper. Therefore, the RTC correctly dismissed the complaint and recognized Palali’s ownership.