G.R. No. 84902 -03 October 2, 1992
AGRIPINO PADRE, FAUSTA PADRE, SILVINA PADRE, and OCTAVIO PADRE; AND SABAS PAA and ROSARIO PAA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ALFREDO P. DE VERA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, Branch XX, JULIANA PACLEB PAREL and FRANCISCO PAREL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed separate complaints (Civil Cases Nos. 2954-V and 2964-V) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to quiet title over two parcels of land in Taleb, Bantay, Ilocos Sur. They claimed ownership based on tax declarations and payments, alleging possession through their predecessors (Jose Padre and Calixto Paa). They filed the suits after respondent Juliana Pacleb Parel cut trees on the land. Respondents claimed ownership through their predecessors (Silvestre Paa, Blas Pacleb, Roman Pacleb, and Bartola Pero), also presenting tax declarations and receipts. The RTC dismissed the complaints, declaring respondents as absolute owners entitled to possession, finding that respondents were in actual possession under a claim of ownership, and that petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of ownership arising from such possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioners assail the appellate court’s decision, arguing errors including the finding of respondents’ actual possession, the validity of the sale from Silvestre Paa to Blas Pacleb, the location and identity of the land, and the disregard of their tax declarations and testimonial evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC decision which dismissed the complaints for quieting of title and declared respondents as having a better right of possession.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held:
1. The RTC, in resolving the complaints for quieting of title, properly treated the action as an accion publiciana to determine who had the better right of possession. The appellate court correctly relied on doctrinal rules that regular courts have jurisdiction over possessory actions and the power to ascertain prior possession of public lands.
2. The Court of Appeals did not err in finding that respondents had a better right of possession. It gave greater probative value to respondents’ documentary evidence, particularly a tax declaration dating back to 1921, supported by testimony. This established that respondents’ predecessors were in possession earlier than petitioners’ claimed possession starting in 1923 and 1936.
3. The appellate court did not err in upholding the RTC’s consideration of the sale from Silvestre Paa to Blas Pacleb despite the absence of a written deed, as the core issue was the better right of possession, not title.
4. Petitioners’ argument that the lands claimed by respondents were different from the litigated properties was rejected. The parties had previously admitted in court that they were referring to the same properties. Thus, it was improper for petitioners to submit contrary proof, and the court correctly considered only formally offered evidence.
5. Petitioners’ tax declarations and receipts, being mere indicia of claim, were insufficient to prove ownership and possession in the concept of an owner, especially against respondents’ superior evidence of prior possession.
No pronouncement as to costs.