MODESTO PALALI, vs.

JULIET AWISAN, represented by her o When his mother died, he buried her in the lot beside the
Attorney-in-Fact GREGORIO AWISAN, house in 1975; while his father was buried near the same
FACTS: plot in 1993.
 Awisan claimed to be the owner5 of a parcel of land in Sitio o His own home had been standing on the property for the
Camambaey, Tapapan, Bauko, Mountain Province past 20 years. During this entire time, no one disturbed his
o 6.6698 ha; Tax Declaration 147 in her name. ownership and possession thereof.
 On March 7, 1994, she filed an action for quieting of title against  Sometime in 1974, petitioner declared the land in his name for
Palali, alleging Palali occupied and encroached on the northern taxation purposes.
portion of her property and surreptitiously declared it in his name o Tax Declaration:200 sqm of residential lot and 648 sqm of
for tax purposes. We shall refer to this land occupied by petitioner, rootcrop land (or a total of 848 sqm).
which allegedly encroached on respondent’s land, as the "subject  RTC: dismissed the comlaint
property". Respondent prayed  CA: awarded the entire 6.6698-ha to respondent
o to be declared owner of the northern portion Hence, this petition
o for the cancellation of petitioner’s tax declaration,  Preliminary Matter:
o for the removal of petitioner and his improvements from  The CA Decision is based on a mistaken understanding of the
the property subject property and what the trial court actually ruled upon.
 Respondent’s Allegations:  The CA was under the mistaken impression that the subject
o 6.6698 ha land was originally owned by her father, property was the entire 6.6698 ha of land.
Cresencio Cadwising.  Because of this, the CA ruled against petitioner on the ground that
o The latter testified that he and his wife consolidated he failed to prove possession of the entire 6.6698 ha.
ownership by declaring them from public land as well as  The CA also disregarded petitioner’s Tax Declaration 31793
by purchasing from adjoining landowners. (despite being coupled with actual possession) because the said tax
o He admitted including in his tax declaration a communal declaration covered only an 848-sqm property and did not cover
sacred lot (patpatayan) even if he did not acquire free the entire 6.6698 ha property.
patent title over the same.  This is clear from the following text lifted from the CA Decision:
o As for the properties he bought, these were generally o RTC’s finding that Palili had acquired subject land by
purchased without any documentation, save for two. virtue of acquisitive prescription cannot be countenanced.
o Cadwising introduced improvements as early as the 1960s. The subject land being claimed by plaintiff is 6.6698 ha
The 6.6698 ha land was mortgaged to DBP, which acquired land. The said description is w/ exclusion of the portion
it in the foreclosure sale. where the residential house of the defendant is erected.
o DBP then sold the land to Tico Tibong, who eventually o report on ocular inspection: possession by Palali does not
donated the same to respondent. extend to entire 6.6698 ha. Not even in the sketch plan
 Petitioner’s (Defendant’s) Allegations: does it illustrate that possession of defendant refers to the
o Petitiner denied encroachment and asserted ownership entire land. Instead, possession points to certain portions
o His ancestors have openly and continuously possessed the  This was not entirely CA’s fault, because a reading of the issues
subject land since time immemorial. presented by respondent to CA gives the wrong impression that the
o He and his siblings were born on that land and, at that subject property is the entire 6.6698 ha:
time, the area around the house was already planted with o I. The trial court erred in failing to consider the
bananas, alnos, and coffee. overwhelming superior documentary and oral evidence of
 the plaintiff Juliet C. Awisan showing her ownership on the found during the ocular inspection which is suspicious in light of
land consisting of 6.6698 ha described in her complaint his assertion that he has a caretaker living near subject property
 The foregoing formulation of the issues presented by respondent for 20 yrs. Cadwising did not bother to explain the absence.
before CA erroneously described "the land in question" as  Thus, respondent having failed to prove possession, her claim rests
"consisting of 6.6698 ha" and erroneously stated that the trial court solely on her tax declaration. But tax declarations, by themselves,
"adjudicated the land in question to [petitioner]". are not conclusive evidence of ownership of real property. In the
 Said formulation is very misleading because the case before the absence of possession, tax declaraton does not prove ownership.
trial court did not involve the ownership of the entire 6.6698 ha, Respondent’s tax declaration, therefore, cannot serve as basis to
but merely the northern portion– the property actually occupied by oust petitioner who has been in possession (by himself and his
petitioner and much smaller than 6.6698 hectares. predecessors) of the subject property since before the war.
 Neither did RTC adjudicate to petitioner the entire 6.6698 ha. It  Neither can respondent rely on the public instruments dealing with
simply upheld his right to the property he is actually occupying. the 6.6698-ha covered by her tax declaration. Such public
ISSUE: Who between the parties has the better right to the property. documents merely show the successive transfers of the property
SC RULING: Petitioner. covered by said documents. They do not conclusively prove that
 CA erred in reversing RTC bec of CA’s erroneous understanding the transferor actually owns the property purportedly being
 As found by RTC, petitioner was able to prove his and his transferred, especially as far as third parties are concerned. The
predecessors’ actual, open, continuous and physical possession transferor does not actually own the property he has transferred,
dating at least to the pre-war era (aside from petitioner’s tax in which case he transfers no better right to his transferee. No one
declaration). Petitioner’s witnesses were long time residents of can give what he does not have. Since Cadwising appeared not to
Sitio Camambaey. They lived on the land, knew their neighbors and have any right, he transferred no better right to his transferees,
were familiar with the terrain. They were witnesses to the including respondent.
introduction of improvements by petitioner and his predecessors. Recap of ruling: Petitioner who has the better claim or title to the
 Petitioner’s grandfather Mocnangan occupied the land during the subject property. While the respondent merely relied on her tax
pre-war era. He planted camote. He then gave the subject property declaration, petitioner was able to prove actual possession coupled
to his daughter Tammam, while he gave a separate one to his son with his tax declaration.
Pacolan Mocnangan. In the 1960s, Tammam and her husband
Palalag cultivated the land, built a cogon home, and started a family Possession, when coupled with a tax declaration, is a weighty evidence
there. Palalag introduced terraces and, together with his sons, built of ownership. It’s more weighty and preponderant than a tax
earth fences around the property. Palalag’s family initially planted declaration alone.The preponderance of evidence is therefore clearly in
bananas, coffee, and oranges; they later added avocadoes, favor of petitioner, as the actual possessor under claim of ownership,
persimmons, and pineapples. When Tammam and Palalag died, he enjoys the presumption of ownership.
their son, petitioner herein, buried them in the subject property
and continued cultivating the land and constructed a new home. A party seeking to recover real property must rely on the strength of
 Respondent relied merely on her tax declaration, but failed to her case rather than on the weakness of the defense. The burden of
prove actual possession insofar as the subject property is proof rests on the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. For he
concerned. Respondent attempted to prove possession of the who relies upon the existence of a fact should be called upon to prove
subject property. Her predecessor Cadwising, had allegedly that fact. Having failed to discharge her burden to prove her affirmative
introduced improvements like a piggery, poultry, terracing, allegations, RTC rightfully dismissed respondent’s complaint.
plantings, and a barbed wire fence. However, not one of these were PETITION GRANTED.