40

Modesto Palali v Juliet Awisan. Represented by her Attorney-in-fact Gregorio Awisan, GR 158385,
February 12, 2010
2nd Division

DEL CASTILLO, J.

FACTS: Respondent Juliet Awisan claimed to be the owner of a parcel of land allegedly
consisting of 6.6698 hectares and covered by Tax Declaration No. 147 in her name. On
March 7, 1994, she filed an action for quieting of title against petitioner Modesto Palali,
alleging that the latter occupied and encroached on the northern portion of her property and
surreptitiously declared it in his name for tax purposes. Respondent prayed to be declared
the rightful owner of the northern portion, for the cancellation of petitioner’s tax
declaration, and for the removal of petitioner and his improvements from the property.
Respondent averred that the land was originally owned by her father and that they
introduced improvements to the property which was foreclosed by bank and sold to Tibong
who eventually donated the land to respondent. Petioner maintained that he and his
ancestors or predecessors-in-interest have openly and continuously possessed the subject
land since time immemorial and insisted that during this entire time, no one disturbed his
ownership and possession thereof.

The RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to prove of physical possession of the land and
found that petitioners possession coupled with tax declarations is strong evidence of
ownership. The CA reversed the ruling as they gave greater weight to the documentary and
testimonial evidence of respondent. The presumption of regularity was given to the public
documents from which respondent traced her title to the subject property.

ISSUE: Who has better right over the property?

RULING: Petioner. 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. In this case, the CA erred
in reversing the trial court’s findings, particularly because, as discussed above, such reversal
was premised on the CA’s erroneous understanding of the subject property. As found by the
trial court, petitioner was able to prove his and his predecessors’ actual, open, continuous
and physical possession of the subject property dating at least to the pre-war era. Thus,
respondent having failed to prove possession, her claim rests solely on her tax declaration.
But tax declarations, by themselves, are not conclusive evidence of ownership of real
property. In the absence of actual, public, and adverse possession, the declaration of the land
for tax purposes does not prove ownership.