Julius D.

Fabi
Property
Prof: Atty Cha Catague

Case:
Zenaida Ramos Balalio, petitioner vs Rolando and Eusebio Ramos and Evangelisto Garcia, respondents
GR# 168464
Nature: Accion Publiciana

Facts: Zenaida, herein petitioner, is the daughter of sps Susana and Abundio Ramos who occupied the
lot # 204 totaling to 7.3 has situated in Roxas, Isabela wayback in 1938. Susana, petitioner’s mother,
remarried Eusebio Ramos and begot five children, one of whom is respondent Rolando Ramos.
Sometime in 1958, a certain Felimon Domingo applied for a sales patent over the subject land which
petitioner’s mother opposed. The Bureau of Land resolves the dispute in favor of Susana declaring that
she and her children have sufficiently established their right of preference over the land and advised her
to apply for a homestead patent for it.
Comes later, Susana sold the land to Zenaida who, in turn, partitioned it among herself and her brother
Alexander and the other siblings including respondent. A deed of sale was executed thereafter, although
the partition was not registered.
Petitioner found out that her share was usurped the respondents. Hence, she filed a case before RTC for
the recovery of inheritance, possession and damages with a petition for preliminary mandatory injunction.
RTC granted plaintiff’s prayer against defendants holding that plaintiff Zenaida was deprived of her right
to cultivation and possession of her share of lot 204 and ordered the latter to pay jointly and severally the
former. Respondents appealed before the CA. CA, after finding that there was no homestead patent
application on the disputed land, reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the case averring that
Susana’s better right of possession never ripened into ownership which she could have transmitted it to
her heirs. Ergo, neither of the parties therein can claim any vested right over the subject parcel of land
which is still part of the public domain.

Issue:
WON petitioner has the preferential right to disputed land which entitled her to sue in courts for the
return of the possession thereof?

Held: Yes, petitioner has proven possession of the said portion of the land she claims as her share which
possession antedates the filing of the homestead application. She produced evidence showing that she
has a verified application for the registration of the land with the Bureau of Lands on Aug 10, 1971.
Moreover, petitioner has tax declarations in her name and that of her predecessor-in-interest covering
the property although it is not conclusive evidence of ownership but they are good indicia of possession
in the concept of an owner for no one in his right mind would pay taxes for a property that is not in his
actual or at least constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title
over the property. Her voluntary declaration of her property for taxation purposes manifest not only her
sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces her adverse claim against the
State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the
Government. Ergo, petitioner’s uncontested and verified application for a homestead patent coupled with
her open and notorious occupation of the land convinces us of her preferential right to possess the land
claimed, which entitled her to be protected by law in such possession.
Wherefore, petition is partially granted. The decision of the CA is modified insofar as to grant petitioner
preferential possession of the land in question.