Alzate v. Cidro

[CA No. 40963-R. April 14, 1970.] CIRIACO ALZATE, ET AL. , plaintiffs and appellants , vs . ESTELITA A. CIDRO, ET AL. , defendants and appellees . Donato A . Cardona for plaintiffs and appellants. Jaime Opinion for defendants and appellees. SYLLABUS OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION; TAX DECLARATIONS AND TAX RECEIPTS; EVIDENTIARY VALUE. While tax declarations and tax receipts showing payment of taxes are not conclusive evidence of ownership, yet when they are coupled with open, adverse, and continuous possession in the concept of owner, such documents constitute evidence of great weight in support of the claim of ownership, since no one in his right senses would take pains to religiously pay taxes on a land not owned by or belonging to him, or in which he feels he does not have any stake (Salas de Gatlin vs . Director of Lands, CA-G.R. No. 15726, July 31, 1957; Saringan vs . Aquino, CA-G.R. No. 24377-R, April 11, 1960; Guinto vs . Bureau of Forestry and Fisheries, CA-G.R. No. 21598-R, August 31, 1960). D E C I S I O N YATCO , J p : By complaint dated May 28, 1964, Ciriaco Alzate, Victor Alzate, Emilio Alzate, Filemon Alzate and Eulalia Alzate, plaintiffs, commenced the instant action before the Court of First Instance of Samar to recover from Estelita A. Cidro, Torquato Altar and Magno Altar, defendants, the ownership and possession of a parcel of land located in the poblacin of Llorente, Samar, and more particularly described in paragraph 2 of the complaint. cdtech The complaint alleged that in June, 1957, and later thereafter, the defendants entered the northern portion of the aforesaid property, having an area of 156 square meters, finally taking possession of the entire lot claiming ownership thereover; that on May 18, 1964, the said defendants fenced the front side of the said property facing Escalo Street, thus causing much inconvenience to the tenants of the plaintiffs whose houses were inside the land in question and who thus were deprived of their right of way, that notwithstanding the repeated demands of the plaintiffs upon the defendants to vacate the land in question and to remove the fence they had constructed, the latter refused to do so; and that by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendants, plaintiffs were constrained to hire the services of a lawyer to whom they bound themselves to pay the amount of P500.00 by way of attorney's fees. In their answer, the defendants denied the allegations of the complaint and averred that the plaintiff's never possessed for any length of time the land in question, the same having been owned and possessed by them openly, continuously, publicly, adversely, and in concept of owner, for so long a time that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary; that they built the fence aforesaid in the said land for no other purpose than to protect their said property from being usurped by, and not to inconvenience, anyone, especially those who had no right to stay thereat, including plaintiffs alleged tenants who are mere usurpers; and that this refusal to heed plaintiffs' demands to vacate the premises in question was premised upon the fact that they could not be made to vacate and be driven out of their very own land; and by way of special defenses and counterclaim asserted that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by prior judgment in Civil Case No. 1075 entitled "Ciriaco Alzate et al., plaintiffs, versus Magno Altar, et al., defendants" that plaintiffs had no cause of action; that to protect themselves from plaintiffs' clearly unjust and unfounded complaint they were constrained to retain counsel to whom they promised to pay the sum of P500.00 as attorney's fees; and that as a consequence of the baseless and unwarranted filing of the instant case, they suffered moral damages which could properly be assessed at P3,000.00. Issues having been joined the parties proceeded to trial, at the conclusion of which the trial Court rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which reads: cdt "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs by dismissing the complaint with costs against the plaintiffs. Likewise the counterclaim is dismissed for lack of merit. Against the said judgment, plaintiffs instituted the present appeal and urge in support thereof that the trial Court erred: 1. In holding that defendants have been in possession of the land in question prior to June, 1957, simply because the complaint for forcible entry (Civil Case No. 1075) was dismissed due to plaintiffs' failure to establish prior physical possession; and 2. In holding that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the defendants. These facts are embodied in the stipulation of facts (See pages 9-10, Record on Appeal) entered into by the parties and are therefore not disputed: 1. The identity of the parties; 2. The identity of the land in question; 3. The northern portion of the land in question in the case at bar was the subject matter in Civil Case No. 1075 for forcible entry which was dismissed by order of the trial Court dated October 28, 1963, to wit: "Considering the motion to dismiss of Atty. Jaime Opinion, representing the defendants, and the opposition to the same by Atty. Donato A. Cardona, representing the plaintiffs, the Court is of the considered opinion and so holds that the said motion to dismiss is well-taken and the case is hereby dismissed without finding as to costs but without prejudice to file a new complaint for the dismissal is based upon procedural error or omission. "IT IS SO ORDERED." 4. Civil Case No. 1075 was between the same party-plaintiffs as in the instant case, as against the same party defendants Torquato Altar and Magno Altar. To give substance to their claim that they owned the property in dispute because they inherited the same from their predecessors-in-interest, Ciriaco Alzate, grandfather of plaintiff-appellant Ciriaco Alzate and father of the other plaintiffs-appellants Victor Alzate, Emilio Alzate, Filemn Alzate and Eulalia Alzate, and who died in 1922, said plaintiffs-appellants presented in evidence tax declaration No. 17333 (Exhibit A) in the name of their said predecessors-in-interest, Ciriaco Alzate, and a certification (Exhibit B) issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Llorente, Eastern Samar, Mariano L. Bornate, which stated that "all taxes for the land owned by Ciriaco Alzate, under tax declaration number 17333 were all paid up to 1955." As further proof of their exercise of acts of ownership over the land aforesaid, plaintiffs-appellants called to the witness stand Celerina Bocar, who testified that she leased out a portion of the land in question from the plaintiffs-appellants from February, 1955 to July, 1964, after she had bought a house standing thereat for P22.00 from one Vicente Bares, who informed her that the land belonged to the plaintiffs-appellants. Upon the other hand, in support of their contention that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the contracted property for time so long that the memory of man could no longer recall it, defendants-appellees adduced evidence to the effect that the land in dispute was previously possessed by Hilario Altar, grandfather of defendants-appellees Estelita Cidro Altar, that upon the death of Hilario Altar the land passed by and Torquato Altar Escalo, and father of Magno Altar; descent to Fructuoso Altar, Torquato Altar Escalo and Magno Altar, who co-owned the property and as such co-owners cleared the land, fenced it, and placed stones thereat to avoid erosion, planted the same to coconuts, bananas, coffee, and hering, and enjoyed the fruits of these trees; that Estelita Altar and her husband were staying in the land; and that there could be no better proof of their long and lawful possession of the controverted premises than the religious and uninterrupted payment of the taxes on the land by them and their predecessors-in-interest, to wit: Exhibits 5, 5-A to 5-J, tax receipts in the name of Hilario Altar covering the years 1915 to 1929; Exhibits 5-K to 5-N, tax receipts in the name of Eladio Altar and Magno Altar covering the years 1929 to 1958; and Exhibits 5-O to 5-V, tax receipts in the name of Fructuoso Altar, Magno Altar and Estelita Altar for the years 1959 to 1966, inclusive. With the admission of Celerina Bocar, witness for the plaintiffs, that none of the plaintiffs-appellants has ever built a house on the land in question (See t.s.n., p. 47 Hearing of March 14, 1966), and the overwhelming documentary evidence chiefly consisting of tax declarations and tax receipts in the names of the defendants-appellees and their predecessors-in-interest. We do think that the Court a quo acted rightly in dismissing plaintiffs-appellants' case. For, while it is true that tax declarations and tax receipts showing payment of taxes are not, as this Honorable Tribunal has repeatedly ruled, conclusive evidence of ownership, yet when they are coupled, as in the instant case, with open, adverse and continuous possession in the concept of owners, on the part of the defendants-appellees, such documents constitute evidence of great weight in support of the claim of ownership, since no one in his right senses would take pains to religiously pay taxes on a land not owned by or belonging to him, or in which he feels he does not have any stake. (Salas de Gatlin vs . Director of Lands, CA-G. R. No. 15726-R, July 31, 1957; Satingan vs . Aquino, CA-G. R. No. 24377-R, April 11, 1960; Guinto vs . Bureau of Forestry and Fisheries, CA-G. R. No. 21598-R, August 31, 1960. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from being in accordance with the evidence and the law, is hereby affirmed with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants. IT IS SO ORDERED. Rodriguez and Gatmaitan, JJ ., concur.