The Supreme Court in Cequena v. Bolante clarified the requirements for acquiring property ownership through acquisitive prescription. The Court held that while tax receipts and declarations are prima facie evidence of ownership or possession, they must be coupled with actual possession to form the basis of a claim. The decision emphasizes that possession must be in the concept of an owner—public, adverse, peaceful, and uninterrupted—to ripen into ownership through acquisitive prescription, distinguishing it from mere occupation, which cannot confer title.

Land Dispute: Can Tax Declarations Trump Actual Possession?

This case revolves around a parcel of land in Barangay Bangad, Binangonan, Rizal, originally declared for taxation under the name of Sinforoso Mendoza. After Sinforoso’s death, the tax declaration was controversially transferred to his brother, Margarito Mendoza, leading to a dispute between their descendants: Fernanda Cequena and Ruperta Lirio (Margarito’s daughters) and Honorata Bolante (Sinforoso’s daughter). The central legal question is who between the parties has the rightful claim to the land based on either documentary evidence or possession. The petitioners relied on the tax declaration in their father’s name, while the respondent asserted her long-term actual possession as proof of ownership.

The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court’s decision, favoring Honorata Bolante based on her actual, physical, exclusive, and continuous possession of the land since 1985. The appellate court questioned the genuineness of an affidavit presented by the petitioners, which purportedly supported their claim. The Supreme Court was tasked to determine whether the CA erred in giving more weight to the respondent’s possession over the petitioners’ documentary evidence and whether the affidavit presented by the petitioners was admissible as evidence.

The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, finding no merit in the petitioners’ claims. The Court addressed the admissibility of the affidavit, the preference of possession, and the issue of better right to possession to ownership. Regarding the affidavit, the Court emphasized that before a private document can be admitted as evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proven. Furthermore, it cannot be considered a declaration against interest if the declarant is available to testify. The Court also noted that the affidavit could not be considered an ancient document because of suspicious circumstances surrounding its authenticity. As the notary public was not presented to authenticate the affidavit, it was deemed inadmissible.

The Court clarified the implications of possession under Article 538 of the Civil Code, which addresses who has the better right to possession when there are conflicting claims. While the petitioners argued that they were dispossessed through force in 1985, the Court recognized that legal possession is not lost through violence. However, prior to 1985, both parties had been in concurrent possession of the land. The Court determined that Bolante had a longer period of possession, dating back to her father’s tax declaration in 1926, thus making her the preferred possessor.

Addressing the issue of ownership, the Court distinguished between possession and ownership, stating that possession is different from ownership. Therefore, the issue of ownership must be established through acquisitive prescription. The Court noted that ownership of immovable property could be acquired through ordinary prescription with ten years of possession. The respondent demonstrated that she had been in possession of the land since 1932, as the sole heir of her father, and her possession had been public, peaceful, and uninterrupted, ripening into ownership. She also declared and paid real estate taxes, further solidifying her claim.

The petitioners’ claim of ownership based on tax declarations and receipts was deemed insufficient. While such documents can serve as prima facie proof of ownership, they are not conclusive, especially without actual, public, and adverse possession. According to the Court, ownership cannot be acquired by mere occupation unless coupled with hostility toward the true owner. While their father and brother arguably acquired ownership through extraordinary prescription due to their adverse possession from 1953 to 1985, this ownership would only extend to the portion they actually farmed.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of actual possession in land ownership disputes. Documentary evidence like tax declarations serves only as initial proof and must be supported by evidence of continuous, adverse, and public possession. This ruling has significant implications for land disputes in the Philippines, emphasizing the need for claimants to demonstrate not only documentary title but also concrete acts of ownership over the property.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was determining who had the better right of ownership over the disputed land based on conflicting claims of possession and documentary evidence.
What is acquisitive prescription?	Acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership through possession of property for a certain period of time, under specific conditions prescribed by law.
What is the role of tax declarations in proving ownership?	Tax declarations serve as prima facie evidence of a claim of ownership or possession but are not conclusive proof of ownership. They must be coupled with actual possession.
What are the characteristics of possession required for acquisitive prescription?	The possession must be in the concept of an owner, public, adverse, peaceful, and uninterrupted for the period required by law.
What is the difference between ordinary and extraordinary acquisitive prescription?	Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession for ten years with just title and good faith, while extraordinary acquisitive prescription requires 30 years of adverse possession without need of title or good faith.
Is a notarized affidavit automatically admissible as evidence?	No, a notarized affidavit is not automatically admissible. Its due execution and authenticity must be proven, and the affiant must be presented as a witness or the affidavit must fall under an exception to the hearsay rule.
What is an ancient document and how is it treated in court?	An ancient document is one that is more than 30 years old, found in proper custody, and unblemished by alterations or suspicious circumstances. It is considered self-authenticating.
Can possession acquired through force ripen into ownership?	No, possession acquired through force or violence does not meet the requirement of peaceful possession and cannot ripen into ownership.
What does Article 538 of the Civil Code provide?	Article 538 dictates who has the better right to possession in cases of conflicting claims; preference is given to the present possessor, then to the one with longer possession, then to the one with title, and finally, the one who can present a title.

In conclusion, Cequena v. Bolante reinforces the principle that acquiring ownership through prescription requires more than just paper titles; it necessitates demonstrating actual, continuous, and adverse possession. This ruling protects the rights of those who cultivate and occupy land, ensuring that mere documentary claims do not override established possession.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: FERNANDA MENDOZA CEQUENA AND RUPERTA MENDOZA LIRIO, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORATA MENDOZA BOLANTE, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 137944, April 06, 2000