GR 216587; (August, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 216587 , August 04, 2021
Spouses Eugenio Ponce and Emiliana Nerosa, Petitioners, vs. Jesus Aldanese, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Jesus Aldanese inherited an unregistered parcel of land, Lot No. 6890, from his father in 1973 and has since paid real property taxes under tax declarations in his name. In August 1996, he discovered that petitioners Spouses Eugenio Ponce and Emiliana Nerosa had encroached upon the entire lot. Aldanese demanded they vacate, but the spouses refused, claiming the lot was part of a 10-hectare property they bought from Aldanese’s brother, Teodoro Aldanese, Jr. Teodoro Jr. denied this, clarifying he only sold his adjacent lot, Lot No. 11203 in Masa, Dumanjug, Cebu, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 13, 1976. During barangay conciliation, the spouses admitted the encroachment, alleging the lot they bought contained less area than stated in the deed. Aldanese filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Aldanese, declaring him the absolute owner and possessor of Lot No. 6890 and ordering the spouses to pay attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.
ISSUE
1. Whether Jesus Aldanese is the absolute owner of Lot No. 6890 entitled to its possession.
2. Whether the award of attorney’s fees to Aldanese has basis.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution.
1. On Ownership and Possession: The Court found no reason to depart from the factual findings of the RTC and CA, which are generally conclusive in a Rule 45 petition limited to questions of law. The evidence preponderantly established Aldanese’s ownership. He presented tax declarations in his name and certificates from the Municipal Treasurer showing he paid realty taxes on the lot since 1980. While tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner. In contrast, the Deed of Absolute Sale presented by the spouses specifically pertained only to a lot in Masa, Dumanjug, Cebu, and did not include Lot No. 6890 in Sibonga, Cebu. The spouses’ claim of acquisitive prescription also failed, as Aldanese’s action for recovery was filed well within the 30-year prescriptive period.
2. On Attorney’s Fees: The award of attorney’s fees was proper, as Aldanese was compelled to litigate to protect his rights after the spouses refused to vacate his property.