Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

SPECIAL SEVENTH DIVISION

DOMINADOR CA-G.R. SP NO. 147250

CARIASO,
Petitioner, Members:

BARRIOS, Acting Chairperson,

*
PAREDES, and
versus
LOPEZ, JJ.

FELICITAS A. Promulgated: March 2, 2018

PADILLA,
____________________
Respondent.

x-------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION

LOPEZ, J.:

“A person occupying a parcel of land, by himself and through his

predecessors-in-interest, enjoys the presumption of ownership. Anyone
who desires to remove him from the property must overcome such
presumption by relying solely on the strength of his claims rather than on
the weakness of the defense.”1

This is a Petition2 for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court

assailing the Decision3 dated June 7, 2016 and Order 4 dated August 11,
2016 of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch
26, in Civil Case No. 9329, for Quieting of Title with Damages.

* Acting Senior member vice J. Japar B. Dimaampao per Office Order No. 82-18-RSF dated
February 23, 2018.
1 Palali vs. Awisan, G.R. No. 158385, February 12, 2010.
2 Rollo, pp. 3-26.
3 Id., pp.30-42.
4 Id., pp. 82-85.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 147250 Page 2 of 13
DECISION

The facts as borne by the records:

On November 17, 2008, respondent Felicitas A. Padilla filed a civil

case for quieting of title with damages against petitioner Dominador G.
Cariaso. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 4617 and assigned to
Branch 2, of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), San Fernando
City, La Union. The Complaint 5 in said case essentially alleged that her
mother, Pelagia Galvez, owned a parcel of land located in Barangay
Ilocanos Sur, City of San Fernando, with an area of 391.29 square meters
and declared for tax purposes under Tax Declaration No. 13522, Series of
1948.

Upon Pelagia's demise, the lot was inherited by her spouse, Fabian
Arcaina, who declared the same for tax purposes under Tax Declaration
No. 45849, Series of 1963. After the latter's death in 1965, his children:
Abelardo Arcaina, Rosario Danao, Alfredo Arcaina, Fabian Arcaina, Jr.,
and Felicitas Padilla, herein respondent, inherited the whole lot and paid
the corresponding real estate tax thereon.

Sometime in 1982, the inherited land was considerably reduced to

256 square meters pursuant to a cadastral survey. The reduction was
clearly reflected in the subsequent Tax Declaration No. 13277, Series of
1986.

On November 12, 1987, the Arcaina siblings executed a Deed of

Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition dividing equally the lot among
themselves at 51 square meters each, with the northeastern portion thereof
being designated to herein respondent, which was subsequently declared
for tax purposes under Tax Declaration No. 61044, Series of 2002, with
the following boundaries: North – Gov. Rivera Street; South – Lot No.
761; East – Creek; and West – Lot No. 760-D.

Intending to apply for a free patent over the whole lot, the Arcaina
siblings consolidated their respective shares. For such purpose, a survey
of the property was conducted and the same was approved as AP-01-
003670 on August 8, 1995.

Meanwhile, on September 5, 1995, respondent Felicitas Padilla was

impleaded as one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 2950 for quieting of
title filed by spouses Juan and Antonina Espinueva before the Municipal
Trial Court of San Fernando City, La Union. In the complaint, spouses
Espinueva alleged that they occupied the land believing that it was owned
by Felipe Cariaso but when they came to find out that it was not, they
nonetheless continued to occupy the land in the concept of an owner by
putting up their own residential house thereon so that herein respondent's

5 Id., pp. 106-113.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 147250 Page 3 of 13
DECISION

tax declaration over the same portion on which their house was built
created a cloud on their claim over the property.

On June 17, 2001, the Arcaina siblings caused another partition of

the whole lot in accordance with their previous extrajudicial settlement.
As such, respondent was again allotted the northeastern portion thereof,
now covered by Tax Declaration No. 61044, Series of 2002.

Later, on November 17, 2005, petitioner Dominador Cariaso

instituted an action for forcible entry against Meynard Arcaina
(Maynardin Arcaina), as representative of respondent Felicitas Padilla,
before the Municipal Trial Court of San Fernando City, La Union, which
docketed as Civil Case No. 4147. Maynardin Arcaina is the nephew of
respondent Felicitas Padilla. In said case, petitioner claimed that the
property, which is also the subject matter of Civil Case No. 2950 filed by
spouses Espinueva, is owned by his father, Felipe Cariaso, and the same
had only been leased to spouses Espinueva.

Respondent Felicitas Padilla now claims that the forcible entry case
has cast a cloud on her title (reinstate). Thus, she prays that she be
declared the owner of the disputed property consisting of 51.20 square
meters covered by Tax Declaration No. 61044 and 11706 and to hold
petitioner Dominador Cariaso liable for damages.

For his part, petitioner Dominador Cariaso claims ownership over

225 square meters of land, which covers the 51.20 square meter property
in dispute as evidenced by his Tax Declaration No. 20681. According to
him, his father acquired the property from Antonino Borja in the 1920s.

Sometime in 1956, Spouses Espinueva leased the subject property,

the same lot now being claimed by respondent Felicitas Padilla, and built
their residential house thereon. Spouses Espinueva declared the property
for taxation purposes with an annotation that the land is owned by Felipe
Cariaso and occupied the same until their demise in 2003.

In 1977, petitioner's father transferred the property to him by virtue

of an Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale duly registered with the Office
of the Register of Deeds of La Union.

On September 15, 2010, the trial court initially dismissed the case
for violation of the rule on forum shopping. On appeal, the appellate trial
court reinstated the case and remanded it to the court of origin for proper
proceedings.

Trial on the merits ensued where respondent, through her nephew

Maynardin Arcaina, presented tax declarations over the subject lot for the
CA-G.R. SP NO. 147250 Page 4 of 13
DECISION

years 1948, 1950, and 1953 in the name of Pelagia Galvez and heirs, tax
declarations for the years 1962, 1967, 1974, 1980, 1985, and 1986 in the
name of Fabian Arcaina, and tax declarations for the years 1988, 1994,
and 2002 in the names of each of the Arcaina siblings, including herein
respondent.

On the part of petitioner, he presented tax declarations showing the

east boundary as creek which he pointed out had always been present
from the beginning. He also submitted copies of Tax Declarations for the
years 1953 and 1974 both in the name of his father, Felipe Cariaso, and
Tax Declarations for the years 1978, 1980 and 1984 in his name.

Petitioner likewise claimed that the name “Alejandro Borja” in the

tax declaration of herein respondent was a mistake because Alejandro was
the caretaker of petitioner's father and he never made any claim on the
property. Petitioner reiterated that the property was bought by his father
from Antonio Borja, the brother of Alejandro. He also stated that spouses
Espinueva constructed their house on their lot as annotated in their tax
declarations.

In a Decision6 dated October 12, 2015, MTCC of the City of San

Fernando, Branch 2, dismissed the complaint explaining as follows:

“In order to remove the cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty

with respect to title to real property subject of this case, it is
important to scrutinize the tax declarations presented by both
parties and trace back the origin of their respective titles. The
origin of plaintiff's title is the 584 square meter lot covered by Tax
Declaration No. 13522 (1948) under the name of Pelagia Galvez.
It shows that the property is bounded in the east by the property of
Antonio Borja. In the year 1962, the property was reduced to
391.29 square meters already in the name of Fabian Arcaina,
where the east boundary is indicated as Alejandro Borja. That on
December 16, 1985, the same property [w]as further reduced to
256 square meters still in the name of Fabian Arcaina where the
east boundary is already indicated as “Creek”. When subdivided,
the 51.20 square meters eastern portion was assigned to plaintiff
Felicitas in its 1988, 1994, and 2001 tax declarations where the
east boundary is indicated as “Creek.” When Maynardin testified,
he said that the property was later reduced due to the expansion of
the road and since there was a big reduction, their family members
specifically Pacita Rafanan[,] wife of his uncle Abelardo
Arcaina[,] worked on the changes of boundaries on the property.
This creates an impression that with the considerable reduction of
the land area of the property that will be subdivided among the
Arcaina siblings, they had to make some changes in the
boundaries which includes extending the eastern boundary from

6 Id., pp. 43-64.

CA-G.R. SP NO. 147250 Page 5 of 13
DECISION

Antonio Borja's property to the Langui Creek, thereby increasing

Fabian Arcaina's lot and taking the portion already owned by
Dominador Cariaso.

As to the defendant, the 1953 tax declaration in the name of

Felipe Cariaso was the origin of his title, where the eastern
boundary is indicated as “Langui Creek” and was carried over to
his January 27, 1984 tax declaration. Defendant stated that he
bought the property from his father, Felipe Cariaso who, in the
1920s, bought the property from Antonio Borja (brother of
Alejandro Borja). A perusal of the 1948 tax declaration of Pelagia
Galvez shows that it is bounded in the east by Antonio Borja's
property, which property was actually bought by Felipe Cariaso,
and in his 1953 Tax Declaration, it shows that the 225 square
meter property is bounded on the North by Gov. Rivera St., on the
South by Heirs of Antonio Borja, on the East by Langui Creek and
on the West by Fabian Arcaina & others, which actually refers to
the property subdivided by Fabian Arcaina's children. It shows
that the 51.2 square meter property subject of this case is part of
the 225 square meter lot acquired by Felipe Cariaso who leased the
property subject of this case to Spouses Espinueva, who built their
house thereon and had it declared for taxation purposes. To bolster
Felipe Cariaso's claim of ownership over the property, Tax
Declaration No. 39239 in the name of Antonina Espinueva over
the building contains an annotation to wit: Spouses Espinueva
leased the said premises until the year 2003. These clearly show
that as early as 1953, the 51.2 square meter lot, subject matter of
this case, is actually part of the 225 square meter lot bought by
defendant's father Felipe Cariaso from Antonio Borja which is
now in the name of Dominador Cariaso.

The rightful party to a case of quieting of title is determined

by the Supreme Court, in the case of Gaspar Calacala et. al., vs.
Republic et. al., where it discussed that: “In turn, Article 477 of the
same Code identifies the party who may bring action to quiet title,
thus: Article 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to,
or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the
action. He need not be in possession of said property. It can thus
be seen that an action for quieting of title to prosper, the plaintiff
must first have a legal, or at least an equitable title on the real
property subject of the action and that the alleged cloud on his title
must be shown to be in fact valid. x x x Verily, for an action to
quiet title to prosper, two (2) indispensable requisites must concur,
namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable
title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2)
the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting
cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact valid or inoperative
despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.”
Unfortunately, the plaintiff failed to establish and prove the
concurrence of the foregoing requisites. To start with, the origin of
CA-G.R. SP NO. 147250 Page 6 of 13
DECISION

plaintiff's title, which is the 584 square meter lot of Pelagia Galvez
is not bounded in the east by the Langui Creek but by Antonio
Borja. No evidence was ever presented to show that the property of
Antonio Borja was purchased or acquired by either Pelagia Galvez
or Fabian Arcaina to change the eastern boundary from “Antonio
Borja” to “Creek” (TD 13277).

Also, plaintiff was not able to show proof of the invalidity of

(sic) inoperativeness of the tax declaration of the defendant who
clearly established that his father purchased the 225 square meter
lot from Antonio Borja and as per 1953 tax declaration is bounded
in the east by the Langui Creek. In fact, in the testimony of the
plaintiff's attorney-in-fact, Maynardin Arcaina, he stated that he
knew Spouses Espinueva who had a house beside the creek, and
plaintiff's witness Rodrigo Borja saying that “the Spouses
Espinueva has a house beside the creek” bolstered the truth that
the 51.2 square meter lot leased by the Spouses Espinueva from
Felipe Cariaso and later from defendant is actually owned by the
defendant and not by the plaintiff.”

On respondent's appeal to the Regional Trial Court of the City of

San Fernando, Presiding Judge Caroline S. Rojas-Jaucian of Branch 26
reversed the foregoing MTCC disposition and ruled in favor of
respondent.

ISSUES

The present recourse thus raises the following issues for the Court’s
resolution:

THE RTC SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT

BELIEVED THE CLAIM OF RESPONDENT PADILLA
THAT THE DISPUTED PROPERTY WAS HER
INHERITANCE FROM HER FATHER FABIAN
ARCAINA;

II

THE RTC ERRED IN IGNORING THE

IMPORTANT SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INACTION OF
FABIAN ARCAINA TO CLAIM THE DISPUTED
PROPERTY AS A PART OF HIS LOT.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 147250 Page 7 of 13
DECISION

III

THE RTC ERRED IN BELIEVING THE FALSE

ALLEGATION OF THE RESPONDENT THAT SHE
BUILT A HOUSE ON THE SUBJECT LOT IN 1964 AND
SINCE THEN UNTIL PRESENT HAS POSSESSED THE
PROPERTY;

IV

THE RTC ERRED IN RULING THAT THE CASE

FOR QUIETING OF TITLE FILED BY THE ESPINUEVA
SPOUSES WITH THE MTCC AGAINST RESPONDENT
FELICITAS A. PADILLA AND OTHERS IS EVIDENCE
WHICH SHOWED THAT FELIPE AND DOMINADOR
CARIASO WERE NOT THE OWNERS OF THE
PROPERTY WHERE THEIR HOUSE WAS ERECTED;

THE RTC ERRED IN DISBELIEVING THE VALID

CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER THAT HE HAD
ACQUIRED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THROUGH
ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION;

VI

THE RTC ERRED IN NOT BELIEVING THAT

LACHES AND PRESCRIPTION HAD SET IN TO BAR
THE RESPONDENT'S CLAIM OF POSSESSION AND
OWNERSHIP OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY; AND

VII

THE RTC ERRED IN FINDING THAT

RESPONDENT FELICITAS PADILLA IS THE OWNER
OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY DESPITE THE
GLAIRING PAUCITY OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
HER CLAIM OF POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP.

Pertinently, the genuine issue in this case is whether the tax

declaration in the name of respondent constitutes a cloud over the tax
declaration in the name of petitioner which purports to cover the same
parcel of land that is being claimed by the latter.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 147250 Page 8 of 13
DECISION

In Mananquil vs. Moico,7 the Supreme Court explained that an

action for quieting of title is essentially a common law remedy grounded
on equity. The competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights
of the complainant and other claimants, not only to place things in their
proper place, to make the one who has no rights to said immovable
respect and not disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he
who has the right would see every cloud of doubt over the property
dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear to introduce the
improvements he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he
deems best. Essentially therefore, the complainant is seeking “an
adjudication that a claim of title or interest in property adverse to the
claimant is invalid, to free him from the danger of hostile claim, and to
remove a cloud upon or quiet title to land where stale or unenforceable
claims or demands exist.”8 But for an action to quiet title to prosper, two
indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or
complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real
property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or
proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in
fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or
legal efficacy.9

Having gone over the parties’ evidence adduced below, We hold

that as between the petitioner and the respondent, it is the respondent who
has the better claim or title to the subject property. While both parties
relied on their respective tax declarations, respondent was able to prove
actual and continued possession of the property in question.

Tracing back the origin of the parties' title to the property, it can be
gleaned that respondent's recorded possession over the subject property
was as far back as the time when her predecessor in interest, Pelagia
Galvez, was in possession thereto. Since then, respondent never left the
land which she inherited. In fact, she had built a house thereon and even
appointed her nephew to look after her property when she went abroad.
Respondent's actual possession of the subject property was also confirmed
by Rodrigo Borja, an adjacent neighbor, who stood pat in his testimony
that he had lived on the adjacent land all his life and knew that the lot in
question had always been occupied by the Arcaina family. He further
explained that the Espinuevas were illegal dwellers who sued respondent
but nonetheless lost their case. He also testified that the Cariasos never set
foot on the subject land.

For purposes of clarity, We cite with approbation the exhaustive

discussion of the RTC's disposition, viz:

7 G.R. No. 180076, November 21, 2012.

8 Pocdo et al., vs. Avila, et al., G.R. No. 199146, March 19, 2014.
9 Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation vs. Bonifacio et al., G.R. No. 167391, June
8, 2011.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 147250 Page 9 of 13
DECISION

“This Court agrees with the plaintiff's observation. The

property being claimed by the defendant-appellee and covered by
Tax Declaration Nos. 30551 and 63272 both in the name of his
late father, Felipe Cariaso, and 97459, 26589 and 20681 in the
names of defendant-appellee Dominador Cariaso comprise of a
225-square meter land bounded on the north by Gov. Rivera St., on
the east by Langui Creek, on the south by the Heirs of Antonio
Borja and on the west by Fabian Arcaina. If these boundaries of
the 225-square meter property allegedly owned by him are correct
and the area in dispute is only 51.20 square meters, then either his
land would extend over to its west affecting the rest of the land of
Fabian Arcaina or south belonging to the Heirs of Antonio Borja.

It cannot extend to the north because it is bordered by the

road or to the east because of the existence of [the] debated creek.
To what extent his claim covers and towards what direction,
defendant-appellee did not specifically pinpoint as defendant only
said his claim is towards the south. Still, however, that would mean
173.80 square meters approximately more to the south direction
with the 51.20 square meter disputed lot protruding in the north
clearly forming a figure that to the mind of the Court is ludicrous
in shape.

Now, defendant-appellee said he has yet to file a case or

cases to recover the rest of his property against the occupants
thereof. Significantly, record of the case shows that herein
defendant-appellee filed against Maynardin Arcaina an action for
forcible entry in 2005, three years before this action for quieting of
title was filed by the herein plaintiff-appellant against him.

Assuming that indeed his ownership extends to the south or

west or both from the disputed property because his evidences of
tax declarations show that he was able to initiate an action against
Maynardin Arcaina for forcible entry and did not pursue the same
action of forcible entry against other occupants of the rest of his
alleged 225-square meter property all of the same time when there
was nothing that could have prevented him from doing so? If he
really owns the 51.20 square meter lot, why did he choose to take
action only on this small piece of land instead of recovering the
bigger portion of the rest of his alleged 225-square meter parcel of
land?

Plantiff-appellant pointed out before the MTCC that her

claim is principally based on Tax Declaration No. 44219 which
practically changed her east boundary from “Antonio Borja” to
“Creek” and “Gov. Rivera St.”. In said tax declaration, there is an
annotation stating that the tax declarations on the property made
pursuant to the measurements of the land in the Advance Plan
CA-G.R. SP NO. 147250 Page 10 of 13
DECISION

survey of the Lot 760-Ap-01-003670, conducted by Geodetic

Engineer Arnulfo A. Cacho which was certified correct by Chief of
the Regional Surveys Division, Marcelo G. Ines, and Regional
Technical Director, Victor J. Ancheta, all of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), accurately
indicating the boundaries on the properties of the Arcain[a]
siblings.

The Court gives the survey plan the presumption of

regularity in the conduct thereof. The defendant-appellee's
objection thereto in this appeal-memorandum because of alleged
failure to send a written notice to him in the plotting of boundaries
in the cadastral survey is too late in the day as he did not refute
nor even attempted to do so before the trial court the annotation in
the tax declaration and the advance survey plan which were the
basis of the corrected area of the Arcainas and putting the
“Creek” as its boundary on the east instead of the previously
indicated “Antonio Borja”.

The opinion of the MTCC, that is, because the Arcaina

property was greatly diminished because of the road extension and
in order to accommodate all the Arcaina siblings in the subdivision
of their said property resulting from their partition, the latter
purposely increased their lot by taking the portion owned by
defendant-appellee Dominador Cariaso, is too much of a
speculation, and only because Maycardin (sic) Arcaina during his
cross-examination admitted that the wife of his uncle Abelardo
Arcaina, who is Pacita Rafanan, is related to the Provincial
Assessor and therefore they were allegedly able to manipulate the
issuance of a tax declaration showing a boundary of the “Creek”
on the east of the property of plaintiff-appellant, is definitely an
insinuation that is uncalled for.

It was because of this erroneous conclusion of the MTCC

that plaintiff-appellant's allegations of ownership were not given
credence and instead handed it to the defendant-appellee because
his tax declarations have since the beginning always indicated the
Langui Creek on the east of his property and has remained exactly
the same under his name.

Contrary to the disquisitions of the MTCC, however, proof

of tax declarations or even tax receipts by themselves are not
enough. To become strong evidence of ownership, they must be
accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property. Any
person who claims ownership by virtue of tax declarations must
also prove the same by actual possession of the property because
tax receipts, tax declarations and even survey plans are not
themselves conclusive and indisputable bases of ownership.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 147250 Page 11 of 13
DECISION

Plaintiff-appellant never abandoned her portion of the land

which she inherited from her predecessors. She had a house built
thereon as evidenced by a tax declaration over a residential house
dated as early as 1965 and had it removed only in 2005. Even then,
[s]he had designated her nephew Maycardin (sic) Arcaina to look
after her property, including her house, when she had left the
country, among others, evidencing her continuous constructive
occupation and possession thereof.

The argument of the defendant-appellee in his

memorandum on appeal that plaintiff-appellant or the Arcainas
never lifted a finger at the Espinuevas when they were building
their house by the creek thereby showing that the Arcainas were
never truly the owner of the disputed portion is inaccurate.
Inaction on the part of the plaintiff-appellant does not necessarily
indicate an unmeritorious claim. Maycardin (sic) Arcaina testified
that in 1995 when the Espinuevas instituted an action for quieting
of title, plaintiff-appellant asserted her right over the same by
defending her claim over the said property. The assertion came at
the opportune time because by then, the advance survey plan had
been performed on the lot describing it to be bordered by the creek
on the east and which metes and bounds then became the basis for
the issuance of the Tax Declaration No. 44219 in the names of the
Arcaina siblings again showing the “creek” on the east of their
consolidated properties. Before then, the Arcainas could not have
asserted any right over the portion east of the creek because their
previous tax declarations thereon indicated a “Borja” as owner
thereof.

Upon the other hand, defendant-appellee did not appear to

have dominion over the land. Notably, in the quieting of title filed
by the Espinuevas against plaintiff-appellant, the former made a
categorical statement in their complaint that Felipe Cariaso, it
turned out, was not the owner of the land on which they had to put
up their house. This was reflected in the Decision in the quieting
of title and served as one of the reasons for the dismissal of the
cases against the plaintiff-appellant. Therefore, defendant-
appellee cannot capitalize on the possession and occupation of the
Espinuevas on the disputed portion to prove that he has always
been at least in constructive possession thereof thru their alleged
lessees, the Espinuevas.

Defendant-appellee allegedly obtained the land by virtue of

an affidavit of adjudication dated 1997. Notwithstanding,
defendant-appellee never took actual and physical possession of
the disputed land even as he declared the property for tax
purposes. Notably, defendant did not present a single tax receipt
evidencing his payment of real estate taxes over the property
covered by his tax declarations. Notably too, he appeared to have
CA-G.R. SP NO. 147250 Page 12 of 13
DECISION

stopped causing the property to be declared for taxation after he

filed his last in 1985. The controversies in the property commenced
in 1995 or ten (10) years after he last declared the property
supposedly containing the total of 225 square meters of land
encompasses the disputed 51.20 square meter portion.

Defendant-appellee admitted that he would only view his

alleged property from Gov. Rivera Street where he would pass by.
He does not know who owns the neighboring house south of Gov.
Rivera Street and next to the house of the Espinuevas. There is no
testimony on the part of defendant-appellee that he had dealings
with the Espinuevas during the latter's lifetime and while they
allegedly were leasing the land on which they had built their
house despite the property allegedly having been adjudicated
already to him way back 1977 and the Espinuevas continued to
live on his alleged land until 2003. Moreover, despite again the
property having allegedly been adjudicated in his favor in 1977, it
was the Espinuevas, and not the defendant-appellee, who filed the
action for quieting of title against the Arcainas in 1995.

Parenthetically, one of his allegations in his Answer was

that the Espinuevas from the time that the property had been
transferred to him by way of the Affidavit of Adjudication had
directed their rental payments to him until their demise in 2003
runs counter to the declaration of the Espinuevas in their
complaint for quieting of title filed against the plaintiff-appellant,
among others, because again it was the Espinuevas allegation
therein that Felipe Cariaso was in fact never the owner of the
subject portion.

Once again, the Court would like to reiterate that in the

complaint filed by the Espinuevas, they were then of the belief that
the land which they had built their house was owned by Felipe
Cariaso, when in fact, they had come to discover that it was not so.
As a consequence, the Espinuevas instituted the action for
quieting of title against the plaintiff-appellant believing that they
had now become the owners of the land by prescription as in fact
as alleged by them in their complaint they had started to occupy
the portion in the concept of an owner, and in open and notorious
possession, meaning that they had been for a considerable length
of time been on the property with the conviction that they, the
Espinuevas have in fact become the owners of the disputed portion
and no other, not even the Cariasos.

xxx”

Time and again, We have held that possession, when coupled with a
tax declaration, is a weighty evidence of ownership. It certainly is more
weighty and preponderant than a tax declaration alone.10
10 Palali vs. Awisan, G.R. No. 158385, February 12, 2010. Also in Tio v. Abayata, G.R. No.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 147250 Page 13 of 13
DECISION

The preponderance of evidence therefore clearly leans in favor of

respondent particularly considering that, as the actual possessor under
claim of ownership, she enjoys the presumption of ownership. The burden
of proof rests on the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. For he
who relies upon the existence of a fact should be called upon to prove that
fact. Having successfully proven her affirmative allegations, We find that
the trial court rightfully granted ownership in respondent's favor.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision dated

June 7, 2016 and Order dated August 11, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court
of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 26, in Civil Case No. 9329 are
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

JHOSEP Y. LOPEZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MANUEL M. BARRIOS VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES

Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court.

MANUEL M. BARRIOS
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Special Seventh Division

160898, June 27, 2008.