TABUENA VS.

CA
(196 SCRA 650)

CASE DIGEST
FACTS:
The estate of Alfredo Tabernilla filed an action for recovery of ownership [440 sqm
residential lot, Aklan] in the RTC against Jose Tabuena. After trial, judgment was
rendered in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant was required to vacate the
disputed lot.
RTC found that the lot was sold by Juan Peralta, Jr. in 1926 to Alfredo Tabernilla while
the two were in the United States. Tabernilla returned to the Philippines in 1934, and
Damasa Timtiman, acting upon her son Juan's instruction, conveyed the subject land
to Tabernilla. At the same time, she requested that she be allowed to stay thereon as
she had been living there all her life. Tabernilla agreed provided she paid the realty
taxes on the property, which she promised to do, and did. She remained on the said
land until her death, following which the petitioner, her son and half-brother of Juan
Peralta, Jr., took possession thereof. The complaint was filed when demand was made
upon Tabuena to surrender the property and he refused, claiming it as his own.
The trial court rejected his defense that he was the absolute owner of the lot, which he
inherited from his parents, who acquired it even before World War II and had been living
thereon since then and until they died. Also disbelieved was his contention that the
subject of the sale between Peralta and Tabernilla was a different piece of land planted to
coconut trees and bounded on three sides by the Makato River.
ISSUE/S:

1. W/N tax declarations are conclusive evidences of ownership.

RULING:

Generally NO, but in this case, YES.

Considering the resultant scarcity of the evidence for the private respondent, the complaint should have been
dismissed by the trial court for failure of the plaintiff to substantiate its allegations. It has failed to prove that
the subject lot was the same parcel of land sold by Juan Peralta, Jr. to Alfredo Tabernilla and not another
property, as the petitioner contends. Even assuming it was the same lot, there is no explanation for the sale
thereof by Juan Peralta, Jr., who was only the son of Damasa Timtiman.
Tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership.However, it is subject to exceptions. In the case at
bar, it is not even disputed that the petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest have possessed the disputed
property since even before World War II. In light of this uncontroverted fact, the tax declarations in their name
become weighty and compelling evidence of the petitioner's ownership. Tax declarations become strong
evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the
property. It is only where payment of taxes is accompanied by actual possession of the land covered by the
tax declaration that such circumstance may be material in supporting a claim of ownership. The tax receipts
accompanied by actual and continuous possession of the subject parcels of land by the respondents and their
parents before them for more than 30 years qualify them to register title to the said subject parcels of land.
 If Alfredo Tabernilla did purchase the property and magnanimously allowed Damasa Timtiman to remain
there, he did not at least require her to pay the realty taxes inhisname, not hers. If he were really that
unconcerned, it is curious that he should have acquired the property in the first place, even asdacion en
pago. He would have demanded another form of payment if he did not have the intention at all of living
on the land. On the other hand, if he were really interested in the property, it is inconceivable why he did
not have it declared in his name when the realty taxes thereon were paid by Damasa Timtiman or why
he did not object when the payments were made in her own name.
In comparison, all the acts of Damasa Timtiman and Jose Tabuena indicate that they were the owners of
the disputed property. Damasa Timtiman and her forebears had been in possession thereof for more than
fifty years and, indeed, she herself stayed there until she died. 12She paid the realty taxes thereon in her
own name.Jose Tabuena built a house of strong materials on the lot. 14He even mortgaged the land to
the Development Bank of the Philippines and to two private persons who acknowledged him as the
owner.These acts denote ownership and are not consistent with the private respondent's claim that the
petitioner was only an overseer with mere possessory rights tolerated by Tabernilla.
 It is the policy of this Court to accord proper deference to the factual findings of the
courts below and even to regard them as conclusive where there is no showing that
they have been reached arbitrarily. The exception is where such findings do not
conform to the evidence on record and appear indeed to have no valid basis to sustain
their correctness.
Private respondent failed to prove his claim of ownership over the disputed property
with evidence properly cognizable under the law. By contrast, there is substantial
evidence supporting the petitioner's contrary contentions that should have persuaded
the trial judge to rule in s favor and dismiss the complaint.
HEIRS OF OCLARIT VS. CA
(196 SCRA 650)

CASE DIGEST
FACTS:

In 1953, the late Juan Oclarit, allegedly purchased from Martin Macalos a parcel of
unregistered land located in Antipolo, Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol, with no permanent
landmarks or boundaries in consideration of the sum of one hundred (P100.00) pesos.
The deed of sale simply described the property as bounded on the north and east by
the property of Herminigildo Baja, on the south by Mariano Gales and on the west by a
brook.
In 1956, Oclarit bought five more parcels of land located in Antipolo and Ulbujan, also
in Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol, from Dalmacio Gales in consideration of the sum of six
hundred (P600.00) pesos.
 In 1975, the heirs of Oclarit filed an action for the quieting of title and damages against respondent Balasabas before the
then CFI of Bohol. Petitioners allege that in January 1969, private respondent entered the properties subject of the
action. Failing to work on the area planted to palay, private respondent climbed the coconut trees, replaced the "J.O."
markings on the trees with "F.G.", representing Felipa Gales, his mother, and caused to be recorded in the cadastral
survey of the land the name of Felipa Gales as claimant against Juan Oclarit. The heirs of Oclarit considered the acts of
private respondent as having cast a cloud of doubt over their title to the property and therefore deprived them of the
enjoyment of the fruits of the coconut trees. Petitioners further alleged that the late Juan Oclarit, from the time of the
acquisition of said properties, had exercised dominion and ownership thereon openly, peacefully, adversely and
uninterruptedly. It was also claimed that the deceased planted coconut trees and other crops on the property, enjoyed
their produce and paid the realty taxes on the land which was continued by his heirs after his death.
Respondent Balasabas claims to have actually and lawfully possessed the disputed parcels of land "since time
immemorial". According to respondent, the first parcel of land was owned by his mother, Felipa Gales, by virtue of
inheritance, and declared in her name under Tax Declaration No. D-1120; while the second parcel of land was acquired
by him from his own mother as evidenced by a deed of absolute sale executed on March 20, 1963 and which he declared
in his name under Tax Declaration No. D-1006. In addition, respondent likewise alleged possession of the parcels of land
openly, peacefully, adversely and continuously without disturbance from any party until he was molested by the heirs of
Oclarit. It was contended that Oclarit himself surreptitiously declared these lands for taxation purposes in his own name.
 CFI appointed the Deputy Provincial Assessor of Bohol as commissioner for the
purpose of determining whether the lands described in the complaint and covered by
Tax Declarations Nos. D-13935 and D-13926. Basing on the commissioners findings,
the lower court dismissed the complaint and declared defendant as the rightful
landowner.
On appeal, CA ruled that petitioners failed to prove either legal or equitable title to the
two parcels of land which are necessary in an action for quieting of title. Petitioners
claim of ownership was based principally on tax declarations which, however, are not
conclusive evidence of ownership.
 However, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial courts declaration that private
respondent is the owner of the two parcels of land and such ownership should be
recognized by petitioners. It considered such conclusion of the lower court as "bereft of
any convincing evidence" because tax receipts, tax declarations and survey plans are
not conclusive and indisputable bases of ownership.
Petitioners filed MR, denied. Thus, this petition for certiorari is filed before SC.
Respondent filed no appeal.
ISSUE/S:

1. W/N the lands claimed by Balasabas are actually foreign and alien to the lands
claimed by Oclarit, making these lands actually his property.
2. W/N tax declarations are conclusive proof of ownership?
RULING:

FIRST ISSUE: NO.

SC can no longer dwell on petitioners claim that the parcels of land which Oclarit had
bought are "alien" or different from the parcels which private respondent had allegedly
acquired from his mother. This is clearly a factual issue which is beyond the ambit of
this Courts jurisdiction.
Had the petitioners been in possession of solid evidence that the parcels of land they
are claiming are "alien" or "foreign" to those declared by private respondent as his,
they should have questioned the commissioners report which was based on the
relocation survey and ocular inspection which were conducted in their presence.
 Moreover, petitioners claim that their property is different from those of private respondents is
indeed antithetical to their filing of the complaint for quieting of title there would not have
been any basis for claiming that private respondent cast a cloud of doubt to their title over their
two parcels of land.
Also, the deed of sale wherein Martin Macalos conveyed to Oclarit a parcel of land did not even
indicate with particularity the area of the land covered. This explains why they indiscriminately
pointed at boundaries which are even beyond what could have been bought by Oclarit. Although
it is true that what defines a piece of land is not the area mentioned in its description but the
boundaries therein laid down, in controversial cases as in this case where there appears to be an
overlapping of boundaries, the actual size of the property gains importance. Thus, petitioners
should have correctly specified even in their tax declarations the areas of the land they were
claiming. It is well settled that anyone who claims that he has a better right to the property, must
prove both ownership and identity of the said property. An area delimited by boundaries properly
identifies a parcel of land.
 There being no appeal taken by private respondent from the adverse judgment of
respondent court, the decision has become final as against him and can no longer be
reviewed, much less reversed, by this Court. This Court is not a cadastral court before
which respondent can seek confirmation of title.
SECOND ISSUE: NO.
Any person who claims ownership by virtue of tax declarations must also prove he is in
actual possession of the property. Thus, proof that the property involved had been
declared for taxation purposes from 1908 to 1945, did not constitute proof of
possession, nor is it proof of ownership in the absence of the claimants actual
possession of said property.
In the same vein, tax receipts and declarations of ownership for taxation purposes
become strong evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by
proof of actual possession of the property.