View full case

FERNANDA MENDOZA CEQUENA v. RATA MENDOZA BOLANTE

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which declared Honorata Mendoza Bolante as the rightful owner and possessor of a parcel of land in Barangay Bangad, Binangonan, Province of Rizal. The land, with an area of 1,728 square meters, was covered by Tax Declaration No. 26-0027. The facts of the case reveal that prior to 1954, the land was originally declared in the name of Sinforoso Mendoza. However, through an affidavit, the tax declaration was subsequently transferred to Margarito Mendoza, who is the brother of Sinforoso. Margarito is the father of the petitioners, while Sinforoso is the father of the respondent. The respondent is the present occupant of the land and has been in possession of it since 1985. There was a dispute on the ownership of the land between the respondent and Miguel Mendoza, another brother of the petitioners, during a cadastral survey in 1979. The only issue in the case is who is the rightful owner and possessor of the disputed land. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the CA reversed the decision, considering the respondent's proof of ownership, which is her actual and continuous possession of the land since 1985. The petitioner argues that the affidavit should be considered as an exception to the hearsay rule and disputes the respondent's claim of possession.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the affidavit is admissible as evidence.

  2. Whether the respondent is the preferred possessor of the land.

  3. Whether the respondent has a better right to possess the disputed land than the petitioners.

  4. Whether the respondent has proven ownership of the disputed land through acquisitive prescription.

RULING:

  1. The affidavit is not admissible as evidence. The due execution and authenticity of the affidavit were not sufficiently established. The affiant, who is the respondent, is still alive and testified that the signature in the affidavit was not hers. A declaration against interest is not admissible if the declarant is available to testify as a witness. The affidavit also does not meet the requirements of an ancient document because it failed to explain how the purported signature of Eduarda Apiado, an illiterate woman, could have been affixed to the affidavit. Furthermore, the affidavit does not state how the ownership of the land was transferred.

  2. The respondent is the preferred possessor of the land. The respondent has been in notorious, actual, exclusive, and continuous possession of the land since 1985. Although the petitioners did not lose legal possession despite their dispossession, possession by the respondent prevails because it is exclusive. Before 1985, both the petitioners and the respondent were simultaneously in adverse possession, but the respondent's possession is preferred due to her father's tax declaration since 1926.

  3. The respondent has a better right to possess the disputed land than the petitioners. The respondent has been in possession of the land since 1932, while the petitioners' father acquired joint possession only in 1952. The respondent's possession of the land was public, peaceful, uninterrupted, and in the concept of an owner, which had already ripened into ownership by the time the petitioners' father claimed the land in 1953. On the other hand, the petitioners, despite farming the land for thirty-two years, did not acquire ownership as their possession was not public, peaceful, and uninterrupted.

  4. The respondent has proven ownership of the disputed land through acquisitive prescription. As the sole heir of her father, the respondent showed that she had been in possession of the land for more than ten years since 1932. Her possession of the land, which was in the concept of owner, was not disturbed until 1953. In addition, the respondent declared and paid realty taxes for the disputed land, which when coupled with proof of actual possession, can be the basis of a claim for ownership through prescription. On the other hand, the petitioners' claim of ownership through tax declarations and receipts in the name of their father has no legal basis as these documents only constitute prima facie proof of ownership or possession.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Before a private document can be received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved. (Best Evidence Rule)

  • A declaration against interest is not admissible if the declarant is available to testify as a witness. (Dead Man's Statute)

  • An ancient document must be more than 30 years old, found in the proper custody, unblemished by any alteration or suspicion, and on its face appear genuine.

  • Not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule on authentication.

  • Possession cannot be acquired through force or violence. A possessor, even if physically ousted, is still deemed the legal possessor.

  • Possession by a preferred possessor prevails over possession by others. The preferred possessor is determined based on factors such as length and character of possession.

  • Ownership is different from possession, and ownership should be established in one of the ways provided by law.

  • Ownership of immovable property is acquired by ordinary prescription through possession for ten years.

  • Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership, but may serve as prima facie proof of ownership or possession.