Cabonita v. Heirs of Mahilum
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on July 13, 2020, that affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The legal issue in this case is who has the better right of possession over a subject property. The respondents, heirs of Leonila Mahilum, were able to prove their ownership of the property through a certificate of title, while the petitioners presented tax declarations or tax receipts as evidence of their ownership. However, the Supreme Court held that the tax declarations cannot prevail over the certificate of title, which is an incontrovertible proof of ownership. The non-presentation of the tax declaration as part of the respondents' evidence did not affect the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities. The Supreme Court also ruled that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon the Court.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252203 July 13, 2020.]
ELPEDIO L. CABONITA, LOURDESITA Q. SARIO, VIDAL QUITARA, JOSELITO CABONITA, RODOLFO SAHOT, ET AL., petitioners,vs.HEIRS OF LEONILA MAHILUM, NAMELY: MYRNA ARATEA, NICOSTRATO M. ARATEA, AND FLORDELIS A. OKEEFE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 July 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252203 (Elpedio L. Cabonita, Lourdesita Q. Sario, Vidal Quitara, Joselito Cabonita, Rodolfo Sahot, et al. v. Heirs of Leonila Mahilum, namely: Myrna Aratea, Nicostrato M. Aratea, and Flordelis A. Okeefe). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the September 24, 2019 Decision 2 and the February 18, 2020 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 11397 for failure of petitioners Elpedio L. Cabonita, Lourdesita Q. Sario, Vidal Quitara, Joselito Cabonita, Rodolfo Sahot, et al. (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding that respondents Heirs of Leonila Mahilum (Leonila), namely: Myrna Aratea, Nicostrato M. Aratea, and Flordelis A. Okeefe (respondents), as the heirs of Leonila, are the registered owners of the subject property, and therefore, have the better right of possession.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondents were able to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that they have a better right of possession over the subject property. The tax declaration or tax receipts over the subject property cannot prevail over respondents' certificate of title, the same being an incontrovertible proof of ownership. 4 Moreover, the non-presentation of the tax declaration as part of respondents' evidence does not determine nor affect the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, as it is the allegations of the complaint that determine jurisdiction. Finally, it is settled that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon the Court and may not be reviewed on appeal, 5 save for certain exceptions 6 none obtains in this case.
SO ORDERED. (Gaerlan, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2780 dated May 11, 2020.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-31.
2.Id. at 37-45. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles with Associate Justices Emily R. Aliño-Geluz and Carlito B. Calpatura, concurring.
3.Id. at 47-48.
4. See Heirs of Vencilao, Sr. v. CA, 351 Phil. 815-826 (1998). See also rollo, p. 44.
5.Ogawa v. Menigishi, 690 Phil. 359-368 (2012).
6. See Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 182-183 (2016).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU