G.R. No. L-10522; September 30, 1958
J. M. TUASON & COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE SPOUSES RAMON VILLANUEVA and VICTORIA FAJARDO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The plaintiff-appellee, J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc., filed an accion publiciana (plenary action for recovery of possession) in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City to recover possession of a 360-square-meter portion of land located within Lots Nos. 14 and 16, Block No. 235, and part of a street lot (Kitanlad Street), covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1267 (37686-Rizal) issued in its name. The plaintiff alleged the defendants-appellants had been in unlawful possession for over a year and sought monthly rentals of P40. The defendants denied the allegations, claiming ownership through inheritance from predecessors-in-interest (Blas Fajardo and Pantaleona Santiago) who allegedly possessed the land since time immemorial. They assailed the validity of the plaintiff’s Torrens title, contending the land registration court acted without jurisdiction. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to vacate, pay rentals from May 14, 1954, and pay costs. The defendants appealed, limiting their appeal to questions of law.

ISSUE

1. Whether the plaintiff’s documentary evidence (TCT, surveyor’s plan, subdivision plan) is admissible and sufficient to prove its ownership and the location of the disputed land.
2. Whether the defendants’ evidence of tax payment proves their ownership.
3. Whether the action filed was the proper remedy (accion publiciana vs. forcible entry).

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
1. On the Plaintiff’s Evidence: The Court held the evidence was admissible and probative. The photostatic copy of TCT No. 1267 (Exhibit A) was properly substituted for the original at trial without objection. The title’s description of the land as located in Caloocan and San Juan, Rizal (not Quezon City) was explained by the fact that Quezon City was created only on October 12, 1939, after the title’s issuance on May 29, 1939, and its territory was carved out from municipalities like Caloocan and San Juan. The surveyor’s plan (Exhibit B) and subdivision plan (Exhibit C) were reliable. A surveyor’s 1946 relocation confirmed the defendants’ structures were within the plaintiff’s titled land. The plans’ certification that they were checked with Bureau of Lands records gave them probative value for establishing boundaries, notwithstanding the surveyor not being presented or the Director of Lands’ signature.
2. On the Defendants’ Claim of Ownership: The Court ruled that payment of land tax is not proof of ownership, especially when the land is covered by a Torrens title in another’s name. The defendants’ tax declarations (Exhibits 2, 3, 4) contained notes stating the parcels were “duplicates” of land included in the tax declaration of “J.M. Tuazon” (plaintiff’s predecessor), which clearly indicated the defendants were not the owners.
3. On the Nature of the Action: The Court held the action was properly an accion publiciana, not a forcible entry case (accion interdictal under Rule 72). The complaint was filed on November 3, 1955, more than one year after the defendants’ alleged unlawful possession began, making a plenary action in the Court of First Instance the correct remedy.
DISPOSITIVE:
Judgment affirmed. Defendants-appellants ordered to vacate the land, pay rentals of P40 monthly from May 14, 1954, until possession is restored to the plaintiff, and pay costs.