You are on page 1of 1

Cequena v.

Bolante
G.R. No. 137944, April 6, 2000

Facts:
 
 A petition for certiorari was assailed wherein a parcel of land situated in barangay Bangad,
Binangonan, province of Rizal is in dispute.
 The land was originally declared for taxation purposes in the name of Sinforoso Mendoza,
father of the respondent. But an affidavit shows that the tax declaration in the name of
Sinforoso was cancelled and subsequently declared in the name of Margarito Mendoza.
Sinforoso died in 1930.
 Petitioners were the daughters of Margarito Mendoza who was the brother of Sinforoso. While
respondent is the present occupant of the land.
 The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners stating that such land in dispute is owned and
covered in the name of Margarito Mendoza who are the petitioners herein based on the
affidavit of tax declaration presented.
 The CA however reversed the TC because the genuineness and the due execution of the
affidavit had not been sufficiently established. And that no notary public or any witness was
presented in the execution of the affidavit nor any expert or competent witness attested to the
genuineness of the questioned signatures.

Issue:
 
1. Does the respondent have the actual, physical, exclusive, and continuous possession of the
land?
2. Were the tax declarations and receipts conclusive evidence of ownership or possession?

Ruling:
 
1. Yes. Possession by the petitioner before 1985 was not exclusive, as the respondent also
acquired it before 1985. The records show that the petitioners’ father and brother, as well as
the respondent and her mother were simultaneously in adverse possession of the land.
2. No. Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership. At most, they
constitute mere prima facie proof of ownership or possession of the property for which taxes
have been paid. In the absence of actual public and adverse possession, the declaration of the
land for tax purposes does not prove ownership. The petitioners’ claim of ownership of the
whole parcel has no legal basis.

You might also like