G.R. No.

L-50420 May 29, 1987

REMEDIOS FERRER-LOPEZ, assisted by her husband, ENGR. JUAN LOPEZ,
ANTONIO V. FERRER, TRINIDAD FERRER-DUMAUAL, and ROSARIO FERRERGUTIERREZ, all heirs of the late DOMINGA VELASCO VDA. DE
FERRER, petitioners,
vs.
The Honorable Court of Appeals, TOMAS MANINGDING and Sp. MARIA NIEVES
PUZON, Sps. FERMIN PERALTA and JULIANA PUZON, and HONORATA PUZON,
assisted by her husband, Atty. DOMINGO PADLAN respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioners are the children of the late Dominga Velasco who inherited Lot 12509 of the
Cadastral Survey of Malasiqui, Pangasinan. Petitioners contend that the area of said
property was originally 54 hectares but 10 hectares were sold by their mother so that
what they inherited by way of testamentary succession are the remaining 44 hectares.
On October 16, 1967, private respondents filed the complaint in the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan against petitioner herein and anchored their claim principally on
the allegation that "sometime in 1965 defendants and her tenants entered,
encroached and took possession of a portion of around 2 1/2 hectares more or less on
the southwestern part of the aforedescribed parcel of land, cultivating and/or tenanting,
the same since then up to the present under the claim of void and ineffective title or
ownership."
Petitioners claim that private respondents were never in actual possession of the land in
question and it was only sometime in February 1967 or a total of more than 32 years
that private respondents first attempted to claim ownership over the alleged encroached
portion of more than 2 1/2 hectares, which portion is part and parcel of the 44 hectares
owned by Dominga Velasco. Petitioners maintain that they have been in successive,
continuous, public, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of said 44 hectares including
the questioned portion of more than 2 1/2 hectares, in the concept of absolute owners,
with just and valid title to the exclusion of all other person for more than 60 years and up
to the commencement of the litigation.
Among the petitioners' documentary evidence are:
(1)xxxxxx
(2) xxxxxx
(3) Exhibit 3 is a tax declaration (No.43111) of the property involved and
is, in the name of Dominga Velasco, the predecessor in interest of the
petitioners,

(4) Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 are realty tax payment receipts of the lot referred to
in the aforementioned Tax Declaration
Private respondents maintain that the total area of petitioners' land is only 518,113 sq.
m. or 51.8113 hectares; that when the Cadastral Survey of Lot 12509 was made,
petitioners' mother was still living and that she herself caused the subdivision of
Cadastral Lot 12509
Respondents stated that petitioners misconstrued the entries therein. Respondents
claim that what was sold to respondents under Entry No. 185 was 1/2 of the land with
an area of 26,704 sq.m. and what was sold under Entry No. 816 was the other half, with
an area of 26,704 sq.m. or a total area of 53,408 sq.m. or 5.3408 hectares.
That as a consequence of the cadastral proceeding over the parcel of land in litigation,
Lot. No. 12510 of the Cadastral Survey of Malasiqui, was brought under the operation of
the land Registration Law, the corresponding decree was entered on December 3,
1956, and Original Certificate of Title No. 13505 was issued to the private respondents
on January 5, 1957.
RTC renders judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered judgment affirming in
toto as assailed decision of the trial court and denied the motion for reconsideration of
the same.
Hence this appeal.
ISSUE:
WON Tax Declaration and Realty Tax Payment Receipt are evidence of ownership?
HELD:
The SC held that said tax declaration and realty tax payment receipt are not conclusive
evidence of ownership. Besides, the tax declaration is not proof of the area covered by
said portion.
The SC also ruled that against this array of "proofs," We have Original Certificate of Title
No. 13505 in the name of the private respondents. This Certificate of Title indicates true
and legal ownership by them over the disputed premises.
The petitioners' appeal by certiorari was DISMISSED and the appealed decision of the
lower court was AFFIRMED.

G.R. No. L-43361

August 21, 1937

THE PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, applicant,

vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, oppositor-appellee.
CIRIACO CHUNACO and JOSE ARAMBURO, oppositors and appellants.
FACTS:
On February 12, 1930, the Province of Camarines Sur, thru its provincial fiscal,
filed with the Court of First Instance of said province an application for the
registration of several parcels of land comprised in the agricultural school site of
the province. The Director of Lands opposed the registration on the ground that
these parcels are public lands. An opposition was also filed on January 19, 1931,
by Ciriaco Chunaco but only with respect to lot No. 3 of Plan II-12638, Amd.,
Exhibit A. Jose Aramburo, who had sold this lot to Ciriaco Chunaco, joined the
latter on account of his warranty in case of eviction.
The present controversy relates only to lot No. 3 as the other parcels of land had
already been adjudicated by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur to the
applicant and the Insular Government.
Counsel for the appellant vigorously assert in their brief that the Province of
Camarines Sur and the Insular Government had recognized the ownership of the
appellants of the land in question by the assessment thereof three times by the
provincial assessor of Camarines Sur in the name of Jose Aramburo.
After hearing, His Honor, Judge Eulalio Garcia, on October 29, 1934, denied the
application of the Province of Camarines Sur, overruled the opposition of Ciriaco
Chunaco and Jose Aramburo, and declared lot No. 3 public land which had been
reserved by the Governor-General on October 19, 1933 for use as site of the
Camarines Sur Agricultural School. The oppositors, Ciriaco Chunaco and Jose
Aramburo, moved for reconsideration and new trial which motion was denied.
Exception was taken and the case finally elevated to this court by bill of
exceptions.
ISSUE
WON assessment made by the provincial assessor is a proof of title
HELD:

Assessment alone is of little value as proof of title. Mere tax declaration does not
vest ownership of the property in the declarant made by the provincial governor
to buy the claims of the appellant Jose Aramburo any concession or evidence of
ownership (Director of Lands vs. Abdul, supra); nor does the issuance of a
certificate of repurchase by the provincial treasurer of Camarines Sur in favor of
Jose Aramburo upon the redemption payment of the accused taxes on the land
up to 1929 vest in him any title or operate as an estoppel against the
Government.
The repurchase certificate was "issued with the understanding that it does not
acknowledge a better right to the properties being redeemed but said Jose
Aramburo than that had by their former owners prior to the forfeiture thereof and
without prejudice to the right of the Government to contest the title thereto, if
deemed necessary, in proper proceedings. Furthermore, the purchaser of land
acquires the interest held by the delinquent owner and the Government is not
deemed to have included in the conveyance the title which it holds over the land.
The petitioners' appeal by certiorari was DISMISSED and the appealed decision was
AFFIRMED.