Urita v. Tamayo

[CA No. 23479-R. June 14, 1960.] LORETA URITA, assisted by her husband JUAN ORTEZA; FLORENTINA URITA, assisted by her husband TOMAS MARANTAN; CIPRIANA URITA; and ESTRELLA URITA , plaintiffs and appellees, vs . ROMAN TAMAYO , defendant and appellant . Felix R . Rosacia, for defendant and appellant. Manuel V . Romillo, Jr . , for plaintiffs and appellees. SYLLABUS OWNERSHIP; EVIDENCE; REAL ESTATE TAX. Non-payment of the real estate taxes is indicative of the fact that the claimant does not believe himself the owner of the property (Cruzado vs . Bustos, et al., 34 Phil., 17, 34-35) while continuous payment thereof is evidence of great weight in favor of ownership. The Director of Lands vs . Aaron, et al., CA-G. R. No. 10337-R, October 28, 1954; The Director of Lands vs . Baligod, et al., CA-G. R. No. 8748-R, May 13, 1955; The Director of Lands vs . Depositario, et al., CA-G. R. No. 10308-R, May 20, 1955. D E C I S I O N SANCHEZ , J p : Suit to recover a parcel of riceland, of about 1 hectares in area, situate in barrio Cul-lit, Lal-lo, Cagayan. The lower court found for plaintiffs, directed defendant to vacate the land and deliver possession thereof to the former, and to pay damages and costs. cdtech Defendant appealed. Undisputed original owner of the land in question was Basilio Urita, father of appellees. In June, 1931, in consideration of P370.00, Basilio Urita sold said land to appellant. The sale was evidenced by a private document, in the Ilocano dialect, prepared in longhand by one Francisco Tolento in the house of Cesario Pascua, then the barrio lieutenant of Cul-lit. Tolento read the document to Basilio Urita who, satisfied with the contents thereof, signed the same. Witnesses to that document were said Francisco Tolento, Cesario Pascua and Manuel Patnio. No copy was made of that deed. Came the Pacific War. That document, with others, was kept in a trunk. Appellant's family evacuated to the forest. Upon return to his place of residence, appellant found his papers and clothes scattered around the house and on the ground. Some tax receipts were retrieved, but the document in question was nowhere. He searched for the same, inquired from neighbors in vain. From the time of purchase in 1931, appellant took possession of the land, in concept of owner; cultivated the same; enjoyed the produce thereof palay up to the present. He paid the taxes on the property before the war, Exhibits 1 to 3, and thereafter, Exhibits 4 to 6. At the revision of tax declarations in the municipality of Lal-lo, the provincial assessor not appellant listed the land in question as the property of said appellant, commencing with the year 1953. Appellees' theory is this: In 1922, before Basilio Urita, the original owner, went to jail to serve time, he entrusted the land to the care of his brother-in-law, Pedro Orteza who, in turn, delivered it in tenancy to Lazaro Duque. Lazaro farmed the land from 1922 to 1933. Basilio Urita died in that year 1933. Pedro Orteza then gave the land to his nephew, Vicente Orteza, who was tenant thereof until 1940, when Pedro delivered said land to appellant Roman Tamayo, as tenant. Except for the year before the outbreak of the Pacific war, appellant did not give the owner's share of the produce to Pedro Orteza, the owner's representative. Appellees admit appellant's possession of the disputed property from 1940 up to the present time. Suit for possession only started on November 24, 1953. Appellees sustain the affirmative. They have the burden of proof. A recital of appellees' evidence convinces us of the insufficiency thereof to establish a case in their favor. Here are the appellees who claim as owners; but at no time have they ever paid taxes on the property. If they were the owners, they would have paid the taxes in the normal course of events. Their failure so to do is significant. It is indicative of the fact that they did not believe themselves owners thereof. Cruzado vs . Bustos, et al., 34 Phil., 17, 34-35. cdta Upon the other hand, appellant Roman Tamayo had been paying taxes on the disputed property. This is evidence of great weight which bolsters his claim of ownership over the land. The Director of Lands vs . Aaron, et al., CA-G. R. No. 10337-R, October 28, 1954; The Director of Lands vs . Baligod, et al., CA-G. R. No. 8748-R, May 13, 1955; The Director of Lands vs . Depositario, et al., CA-G. R. No. 10308-R, May 20, 1955. Appellant's possession of the land was in concept of owner. It started from the year 1931. Suit was filed only in 1953. Clearly, prescription has set in. Appellees are barred from recovering the land. Still another circumstance militates against appellees' position. Their predecessor-in-interest, Basilio Urita, died in 1933. They knew all along that since 1940, appellant had been in possession of the land. They were aware, too, of the fact that except for the year 1940, appellant never gave them a share in the produce of the land. They slept on their alleged rights. They are guilty of laches. Etorma vs . Villarubia, et al., CA-G. R. No. 6937-R, February 28, 1955. Upon the view we take of this case, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the complaint is dismissed, with costs in both instances against plaintiffs appellees. LexLib IT IS SO ORDERED. Natividad and Angeles, JJ . , concur.