Scribd
Upload
45 views2 pages

151.cequena Vs Bolante

1) This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between the daughters of Margarito Mendoza and the daughter of Sinforoso Mendoza, who were brothers. 2) The trial court ruled in favor of the daughters of Margarito Mendoza, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding that the daughter of Sinforoso Mendoza had acquired ownership of the land through prescription by possessing the land since her father's time in a public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner and by declaring and paying taxes on the land.

Uploaded by

Leo Tumagan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
45 views2 pages

151.cequena Vs Bolante

1) This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between the daughters of Margarito Mendoza and the daughter of Sinforoso Mendoza, who were brothers. 2) The trial court ruled in favor of the daughters of Margarito Mendoza, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding that the daughter of Sinforoso Mendoza had acquired ownership of the land through prescription by possessing the land since her father's time in a public, peaceful, and uninterrupted manner and by declaring and paying taxes on the land.

Uploaded by

Leo Tumagan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

151.

Cequena vs Bolante
On October 15, 1975, respondent Honorata Bolante and Miguel Mendoza, brother of petitioners,
had a dispute on the ownership of the land during the cadastral survey. Because of this dispute,
herein petitioners filed a civil case against respondent claiming ownership and possession of the
parcel of land in question.

During the pre-trial conference, parties stipulated the following facts:

1) The land subject of the case was formerly declared for taxation purposes in the name of
Sinforoso Mendoza prior to 1954 but isnow declared in the name of Margarito Mendoza.

2) The parties agree[d] as to the identity of the land subject of instant case.

3) [Petitioners] are the daughters of Margarito Mendoza while the [respondent] is the only
daughter of Sinforoso Mendoza.

4) Margarito Mendoza and Sinforoso Mendoza [were] brothers, now deceased.

5) During the cadastral survey of the property on October 15, 1979 there was already a dispute
between Honorata M. Bolante and Miguel Mendoza, brother of [petitioners].

6) [Respondent was] occupying the property in question.

Issue: The only issue involved [was] who [was] the lawful owner and possessor of the land
subject of the case.

RTC: After trial, the court a quo rendered its judgment in favor of petitioners awarding the
questioned
property to petitioners and ordered herein respondent to vacate the property subject of the case
and deliver possession thereof to the heirs of Margarito Mendoza. Aggrieved by the decision,
respondent filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals.

CA: The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision.

SC: The Supreme Court found the petition not meritorious. The Court ruled that the appellate
court was correct in not giving credence to the affidavit presented by the petitioner for the reason
that it cannot be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule under the dead man's statute.
Likewise, the affidavit cannot be considered an ancient document as the petitioner failed to
explain how the purported signature of one of the respondents could have been affixed as she
was an illiterate woman who had never had any formal schooling.

Respondent's possession was not disturbed until 1953 when the petitioners' father claimed the
land. But by then, her possession, which was in the concept of owner —public, peaceful, and
uninterrupted — had already ripened into ownership. Furthermore she herself, after her father's
demise, declared and paid realty taxes for the disputed land. Tax receipts and declarations of
ownership for taxation, when coupled with proof of actual possession of the property, can be the
basis of a claim for ownership through prescription.

In contrast, the petitioners, despite thirty-two years of farming the subject land, did not acquire
ownership. It is settled that ownership cannot be acquired by mere occupation. Unless coupled
with the element of hostility toward the true owner,occupation and use, however long, will not
confer title by prescription or adverse possession. Moreover, the petitioners cannot claim that
their possession was public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Although their father and brother
arguably acquired ownership through extraordinary prescription because of their adverse
possessionfor thirty-two years (1953-1985), 29 this supposed ownership cannot extend to the
entire disputed lot, but must be limited to the portion that they actually farmed.

Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership. At most, they constitute
mere prima facie proof of ownership or possession of the property for which taxes had been paid.
In the
absence of actual public and adverse possession, the declaration of the land for tax purposes does
not prove ownership. In sum, the petitioners' claim of ownership of the whole parcel has no legal
basis. Accordingly, the Court denied the petition and the assailed decision and resolution of the
appellate court were affirmed.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy