Ganila vs CA, G.R. No.

150755 June 28, 2005 461 SCRA 435

Facts: Violeta filed before MCTC 21 ejectment complaints against respondents when
the latter refused to vacate Lot 1227 upon demand. Violeta alleged ownership over the
lot by succession, and that she only tolerated the latter’s construction of their
improvements thereon. In support of her claim, Violeta presented a copy of its tax
declaration. The petitioners however refuted the allegations contending it was part of
the shoreline or forest, that their long-possession is not a mere tolerance since they are
possessors in the concept of an owner and in good faith, and that the tax declaration is
not a sufficient evidence of ownership. As agreed during the preliminary conference, the
land was surveyed. The results showed that the petitioners were occupying the area.
However, the counsel for the petitioners neither filed their position papers nor submitted
a sufficient evidence to prove their defenses. Consequently, the MCTC adjudged in
favor of Violeta which was also affirmed by the RTC. The petitioners filed a joint petition
for review with the Court of Appeals but was denied.
Issue:
Whether or not the tax declaration is a sufficient proof of claim of ownership
Ruling:
Yes. Although tax declarations or real tax payment of property are not conclusive
evidence of ownership, nevertheless they are good indicia of possession in the concept
of owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in
his actual or constructive possession. The voluntary declaration of a property for tax
purposes manifests not only one’s honest desire to obtain title to the said property and
announces his adverse claim against the state and all other interested parties but also
his intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such as act strengthens
one’s bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership. Moreover, the allegations of the
petitioners were not only unsubstantiated but also rebutted by the commissioner’s report
and sketch plan which sufficiently corroborated Violeta’s allegation that petitioners were
occupying the subject land in contrast with the latter’s claim of being a shoreline or
social forest area.