G.R. No. 160065 , February 28, 2006
FELINO EBREO, SPOUSES ANTONIO and EVELYN P. BERAÑA, IGNACIO EBREO and ELEUTERIA CUETO, Petitioners, vs. GIL EBREO, represented by His Attorney-in-Fact, FELIXBERTO EBREO, FLAVIANO EBREO and HOMOBONO CUETO, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a co-owned parcel of land, Lot 9046-F, inherited by the heirs of Felipe Ebreo. The heirs executed a “Kasulatan ng Pagbabahagi ng Lupa” in 1967, partitioning other lots but agreeing to retain Lot 9046-F under co-ownership. Respondents (plaintiffs below) filed an action for partition, alleging they never sold their shares. Petitioners (defendants) claimed the co-owners had sold the entire lot to Santiago Puyo in 1968, who later sold it to petitioner Antonio Ebreo in 1976. Antonio Ebreo subsequently possessed the lot and paid realty taxes.
The petitioners, however, failed to present the original or a copy of the alleged 1968 Deed of Absolute Sale from the heirs to Santiago Puyo. Their evidence consisted primarily of tax declarations in the names of Santiago Puyo and later Antonio Ebreo, with one declaration containing an annotation referencing the alleged sale to Puyo. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering partition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

ISSUE

Does the annotation of an alleged sale in a tax declaration, without production of the deed itself, sufficiently prove the conveyance of title and extinguish the co-ownership?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that the annotation in the tax declaration is insufficient to prove the alleged sale and transfer of ownership. The Court applied the Best Evidence Rule under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, as in this case where the existence and terms of a deed of sale are crucial, the original document must be produced. Secondary evidence, like the annotation on a tax declaration, is inadmissible unless the proponent establishes a foundation for its introduction by showing the original’s loss or unavailability without bad faith. Petitioners failed to do this.
The tax declaration itself is not a title or conclusive proof of ownership; it is merely prima facie evidence of possession or claim of ownership. The annotation thereon, being hearsay and not the document itself, cannot substitute for the deed of sale. Since petitioners failed to present the best evidence—the deed—their claim that the co-ownership was dissolved by the sale to Puyo remained unproven. Consequently, the respondents’ right to seek partition of the still co-owned property was upheld.