Ramos v. Ramos

[CA No. 22006-R. September 1, 1965.] PABLO RAMOS, substituted by his heirs, and VALENTIN MENDOZA, MAXIMA MARTIN, FAUSTA B. RAMOS, DEOGRACIAS RAMOS, MATILDE RAMOS, and BIENVENIDO TAYSON , plaintiffs and appellants , vs . CLARO RAMOS, substituted by his heirs, FAUSTA RAMOS, ALBINA RAMOS, and VICTORIA RAMOS , defendants appellees . A . N . Bolinao, Jr . , Ernani Cruz Pao and Jose R . Sebastian for plaintiffs and appellants. Romeo Tablan for defendants and appellees. SYLLABUS 1. ACTIONS; PARTITION; TAX DECLARATIONS AND TAX RECEIPTS; PROBATIVE VALUE. Real estate tax declarations as well as payment of real estate taxes are not strong evidence of ownership in favor of one party, and are not incompatible with the claim of co-ownership, particularly where the party paying the realty taxes is the very one obtaining most benefit from the property. 2. ID.; ID.; RULE OF IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY; EXCEPTION; REMEDY OF EXCLUDED CO-OWNER. The rule that an action for partition among co-owners never prescribes applies only as long as the evidence of co-ownership is admitted by all the co-owners. From the moment one co-owner asserts adverse possession of the thing owned in common to the exclusion of the other co-owner, the period of prescription begins to run and the excluded co-owner should demand partition and if necessary bring an action for partition, otherwise he may, by his inaction, lose his rights. D E C I S I O N ALVENDIA , J p : This is an action for partition of a parcel of land described in the complaint and for an accounting by the defendant of the produce of the land. casia Plaintiffs claim that the land was originally owned by Juan Ramos, direct ascendant of all the parties-plaintiffs and defendants. Upon the death of Juan Ramos, defendant was allowed by his brothers and sisters to stay with his family in the property in question as he had no place where to live. Although defendant and his family lived in said place, plaintiffs exercised their right as co-owners as manifested by their acts in cutting bamboos growing on the land whenever they had need for them without being hindered by defendant, until 1955 when defendant stopped them from cutting bamboos and claimed adverse possession and ownership over the land to the exclusion of the plaintiffs. The complaint was filed on July 31, 1956. Defendant admitted that the land originally belonged to his Father Juan Ramos but he claims that even before Juan Ramos died in 1917, the same was given to him by his father (par. 2, answer dated September 17, 1956) and since then he continuously, peacefully and adversely occupied it as owner. The plaintiffs, except Pablo Ramos, are either grandchildren or great grandchildren of Juan Ramos in the direct descending line. Pablo Ramos was a son of Juan Ramos and upon his death, he was substituted in this case by his children Antonio, Marciana, Pio, Jose and Elisa. Originally the only defendant was Claro Ramos, but upon his death, he was substituted by his children Fausta Ramos, Albina Ramos and Victoria Ramos. The new substituted defendants filed an amended answer alleging that the land in dispute is presently described in the Provincial Assessor's office as follows: "1. A parcel of unregistered land situated in San Agustin, Hagonoy, Bulacan. Bounded on the North by Simeona de Jesus; on the East, by Prudencio Tanjutco; on the South, by Solar del declarante; and on the West, by Ciriaco Tayson. Containing an area of 1,668 square meters, more or less. With Tax Declaration No. 4801 in the names of Fausta Ramos, Albina Ramos, and Victoria Ramos. Assessed at P40.00. "2. A parcel of unregistered land (solar) situated in San Agustin, Hagonoy, Bulacan. Bounded on the North by Canaveral del declarante; on the East, by Prudencio Tanjutco; on the South, by Calle Pasaje; and on the West by Cesario Tecson. Containing an area of 420 square meters more or less. With Tax Declaration No. 4802 in the name of Fausto Ramos (it should be Fausta). Assessed at P340.00." During the trial the parties through their lawyers agreed to the above description of the land in dispute. Defendants claim acquisitive prescription as basis for their ownership; and the Statute of Limitations as a bar to plaintiffs' action. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the preponderance of evidence was in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs appealed. Plaintiffs presented two witnesses and the deposition of Pablo Ramos. It was taken on October 7, 1956 six days before he died but it appears in his deposition that counsel for the defendant agreed with counsel for the plaintiff that deponent was a competent witness on the date of his deposition. Pablo Ramos stated in his deposition that the land in question was originally acquired by his father Juan Ramos from Juan Tanjutco. It was improved by Juan Ramos and his children by filling it up. Since then, the property was considered as belonging to Juan Ramos and his children, who contributed to the payment of real estate taxes due on the property. Claro Ramos and his family, due to poverty and misery, were allowed by the co-owners to stay on the land in dispute. Pio Ramos one of the direct grandchildren of Juan Ramos corroborated the deposition of Pablo Ramos claiming that defendant Claro requested his co-owners to let him stay in the property as long as he lived and they agreed. However, since they were co-owners, they cut bamboos from the land and they were not prohibited by Claro until 1955 when he stopped them, claiming exclusive ownership of the land. Defendant Fausta Ramos claims that the land was never the property of their grandfather Juan Ramos because she was told by her father Claro Ramos that said land was given by Juan Tanjutco directly to Claro Ramos (p. 18, t.s.n.). This, however, was stricken off for being hearsay. Moreover, this is contrary to the theory of Claro Ramos, himself, as stated in his original answer to the complaint. Defendants also presented Exhibits C, C-1 to C-13 which they marked as Exhibits 2, 2-A to 2-N (real estate tax receipts on the property since 1931) to corroborate the testimony of defendant Fausta Ramos that her father has always been the owner of the property. In fact, they are the main basis of the trial Court's decision. Real estate tax declarations as well as payment of real estate taxes are not strong evidence of ownership. We disagree with the trial court's ruling that they have a greater probative value than the testimony of the heirs especially Pablo Ramos who had direct personal knowledge of the origin of the ownership over the land. The payment of the realty taxes on the property by Claro Ramos and his children, even if we disregard the evidence introduced by the plaintiffs to the effect that they contributed to said taxes, is not incompatible with the claim of co-ownership by the plaintiffs considering the fact that Claro Ramos and his family were the ones who obtained most benefit from the property. Considering the evidence presented by the parties on this point, we rule as established by the plaintiffs that the land was originally owned by Juan Ramos, common direct ascendant of all the plaintiffs and defendants. Upon his death in 1917 ownership passed to all his children and their successors in interest as co-owners, the plaintiffs and the defendants in this case. Defendants further allege prescription as a defense. While an action for partition among co-owners never prescribes, this rule applies only as long as the existence of co-ownership is admitted by all the co-owners. From the moment one co-owner asserts adverse possession of the thing owned in common to the exclusion of his co-owners, the period of prescription begins to run and the excluded co-owners should demand partition and if necessary bring an action for partition otherwise they may, by their inaction, lose their right. Has Claro Ramos denied the existence of co-ownership? The evidence for the plaintiffs shows that Claro Ramos claimed exclusive ownership of the land only in 1955 when he prohibited the plaintiffs from cutting bamboos from the property in question. The defendants did not introduce any direct evidence to rebut this claim of plaintiffs because of their theory that the land was never the property of Juan Ramos and, therefore, could not have been owned in common by plaintiffs and defendants. It was suggested through the testimony of defendant Fausta Ramos that the property was donated by Claro to his children in 1935 and since then the latter became the owner of the land ((pp. 17-18, t.s.n.). This is an indirect way of showing that at least from 1935 Claro Ramos exercised acts of absolute ownership over the property. This claim, however, cannot be given credence because the alleged deed of donation (marked according to the transcript p. 18 as Exhibit 1) was not introduced in evidence. Lest there was a mistake in the transcript of the stenographic notes, we turned to the folder of Exhibits and we found that the exhibits are paged from 1 to 22 and Exhibit 1 is not among them. Not satisfied with the absence of Exhibit 1 among the exhibits forwarded to this Court by the trial court we required the Clerk of Court of First Instance of Bulacan from which this case originated to forward to this Court said Exhibit 1. In his manifestation with motion for relief from our requirement, the present Clerk of Court stated that "an examination of the original records of Civil Case No. 1337 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Pablo Ramos et al. vs . Claro Ramos (CA-G.R. No. 22006-R) discloses that Exhibit 1 for the defendant was not presented as per note "Exhibit 1 for defendant not presented' signed by Deputy Clerk of Court Rosendo F. Rilloraza of Bulacan dated November 13, 1957", attaching to said motion as Annex A, a certification dated November 13, 1957 signed by former Deputy Clerk of Court, Branch 1, Rosendo F. Rilloraza to the effect that Exhibit 1 for the defendant was not presented and as Annex B an index of exhibits transmitted to this Court with the notation that Exhibit 1 deed of donation inter vivos was not presented; and defendant asked that Exhibits C, C-1 to C-13 be considered as exhibits for the defense." Our purpose in asking for Exhibit 1 is to determine the veracity of the claim of Fausta Ramos as well as the nature and terms of said supposed deed of donation. This to our mind is important because the same Fausta Ramos who claims a right based on the alleged deed of donation contradicted herself when she repeatedly stated during her testimony that up to the death of her father which took place in 1957, he was the owner of the property (pp. 15-16, t.s.n.). If the latter testimony of Fausta Ramos is true then the defendants as children of the deceased Claro Ramos cannot invoke acquisitive prescription based on the supposed donation allegedly executed in 1935. Furthermore, even if we take into consideration the alleged deed of donation, the same cannot adversely affect the plaintiffs since presumably they are not parties to said document. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed. The plaintiffs and defendants are hereby declared co-owners of the land in dispute. This case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in accordance with Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. No pronouncement as to costs. LexLib SO ORDERED. Angeles and Gatmaitan, JJ . , concur.