GR L 15590; (December, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15590, December 13, 1920
ROSENDO VIERNES and FRANCISCO VIERNES, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. URBANO AGPAOA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
The plaintiffs, Rosendo Viernes and Francisco Viernes, filed an action to recover a parcel of land located in Vitar, Ilocos Norte, seeking adjudication of title, a permanent injunction against the defendants, and damages. After the defendants answered, it was agreed that only defendant Urbano Agpaoa had an interest in the land, and the case was dismissed as to the other defendants. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them the land without damages or costs. Urbano Agpaoa appealed.
The parties submitted an “Agreed Statement of Facts,” which included contradictory admissions: one set of witnesses would testify that the plaintiffs were owners and possessors, while another set would testify that the land belonged to the Insular Government and was ceded to Agpaoa as a homestead, making him the owner and possessor. The plaintiffs also presented tax receipts showing they had paid real property taxes on the land for many years. On the other hand, Agpaoa took possession of the land in 1911 and obtained a homestead patent from the Government in 1916 after fulfilling the required five-year occupation.
ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiffs have sufficiently proven their ownership of the land to justify recovery and adjudication of title.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and absolved defendant Urbano Agpaoa from the complaint.
The Court held that the contradictory admissions in the “Agreed Statement of Facts” left the actual state of the title uncertain and could not serve as a legitimate basis for judgment. The payment of taxes, while evidence of a claim of ownership and potentially supportive of title by prescription when coupled with possession, does not by itself confer or prove title. The plaintiffs failed to present other proof of ownership beyond the tax receipts and the inconclusive admissions.
In contrast, Agpaoa demonstrated lawful acquisition of the land through occupation and a homestead patent granted by the Government in 1916, after complying with the statutory requirements. Thus, the plaintiffs did not prove their title, while Agpaoa established his ownership through a valid government grant. The Court ordered the reversal of the judgment, with no costs awarded.