BASILIO PEREZ and PETRA MONTALBO, petitioners, vs.

NICOLAS MENDOZA, MARGARITA MACALALAD and the

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

No. L-22006. July 28, 1975.

Ponente: J. Munoz Palma, JTP
Perez vs. Mendoza, 1975

SUBJECT MATTER: Ownership; Requisites for Recovery; Prove his right of ownership

CASE SUMMARY:

A Parcel of Land was possessed by Margarita and Nicolas Mendoza but it was originally owned by the sibling of Margarita
mother’s, Estanislao. According to the Mendozas, the land was inherited by Felisa, Estanislao’s daughter but exchanged
it with Margarita’s mother property. Petra, the other daughter of Estanislao with her husband, Basilio now contests the
Mendoza’s ownership claiming that they owned the land and the Mendozas were only lessees.

SC held that the land was owned by Mendozas due to the insufficient evidence presented by Petra and Basilio. All
evidence pointed to the Mendozas ownership. Their possession of the land was also given credence by the SC. See
doctrines on how possession is important in determining ownership.

DOCTRINES:

There is a presumption of ownership in favor of the possessor.

In case of conflicting claims of possession, the present possessor is preferred.

FACTS:
Kindly Refer to the family tree first. Basically, this is a conflict between (A) Petra and Basilio and (B) their niece Margarita
regarding a parcel of land. They had their own version on how the land belonged to them.

Family Tree

Estanislao Montalbo (1918) SIBLINGS Andrea Montalbo

Children

Margarita Nicolas
Pedro Petra Basilio Felisa
Jose

Means Spouse
 Nicolas and Margarita Mendoza version Basilio and Petra Version
1 The PARCEL of land in Taysan, Batangas which is the reason for Same with Left
conflict in this case was owned by Estanislao Montalbo
2 When Estanislao died in 1918, the above property including others Same with left
were transferred to his 3 children.
3 When Pedro, his only son died, Petra and Felisa co-owned all of the The PARCEL was equally divided
properties since Pedro died single. The PARCEL was Felisa’s share. between Felisa and Petra.
4 Felisa exchanged the land with her aunt Andrea’s property because In 1952, Felisa and her husband, Jose sold
Andrea wanted to donate land to the municipality for a school site their ½ share to Petra and Basilio so
and it is Felisa’s land which the municipality preferred. Petra now owns the entire parcel.
However, the deed of sale was lost a year
after.
5 Andrea donated half of it to the school and the other half to her In 1946, they leased the property to the
daughter Margarita when the latter married Nicolas Mendoza. Mendozas.

6 Nicolas wanted the tax declaration of the property to be in his name
so he executed a deed of exchange with the ff details:
1. Dated January 14, 1922
2. Between Felisa and Andrea
3. Signed in presence of Municipal Secretary Rafael Manahan
In 1951, the lease expired and they
demanded the return of land but the
Mendoza’s refused so petitioners filed an
ejectment suit before the Justice of the
Peace Court in Taysan

The conflict started/ difference was revealed when Basilio checked the Deed of Exchange of Nicolas and found out that
Rafael’s secretary was forged. He then filed a criminal complaint for falsification of private document against Nicolas.
Nicolas was convicted by CFI Batangas but was acquitted by CA due to lack of evidence that he was aware of the falsity
or he participated in it.

He also filed a civil case to settle the ownership issue but the CFI ruled in favor of Nicolas Mendoza. However, the CFI
based it on CA’s assessment in the criminal complaint that the parcel was owned by Nicolas although the ownership was
never questioned there. Basilio questioned this before the SC and the SC agreed that the findings in the criminal
complaint should not be used as evidence nor apply res judicata due to difference in parties involved (State vs Basilio)
and the subject matter (falsification vs ownership). Although, when the civil case was elevated to the CA, the court
corrected the error and made its own evaluation. They still sided with the Mendoza’s version and ultimately held that:
Mendoza’s possessed the land since 1927 and Basilio only attempted to disturb the possession in 1952 when they filed
an unlawful detainer. They also found no evidence of Basilio’s claim that the Mendoza’s were only lessess. They said the
confusion might have been due to the fact the property was still declared for taxation purposes in the name of Estanislao.

Nonetheless, Basilio appealed the decision before the SC

ISSUE/S:

1. WON CA erred in ruling that the Mendoza’s owned the land? NO

HOLDING:

Discussion regarding facts

During trial, Basilio admitted that the adjacent school property is part of the parcel before but he did not offer any
explanation why. On the other hand, the Mendoza’s had an explanation to it (i.e. their mother donated the school site to
the municipality). Moreover, the Mendoza’s presented evidence that the school site was already in the municipality’s
name by 1925 which supports their statement that a donation took place in 1922.

Second, the Municipality dealt with Mendozas for widening the road along the Parcel and Basilio admitted that the
authorities did not deal with him at all regarding the same matter. This is important since if they claim that they
possessed the land, it should have been them who were approached.
Third, the Mendozas claimed they lived there and constructed a house. Basilio agreed to this fact. This was also
corroborated by retired justice of the peace Adriano Gonzales.

Discussion on legal basis

POSSESSION is an indicium of ownership of the thing possessed and to the possessor GOES THE PRESUMPTION THAT HE
HOLDS THE THING under a claim of ownership. ART 433 provides that “Actual possession under claim of ownership raises
a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.
Article 538 also presents several tests of ownership. These are:

a. Present Possessor preferred

b. If two present possessors, the one who possessed it longer
c. If duration of possession the same, the one who presents a title
d. If still the same, to be placed under judicial deposit until proceedings are finished

Applying it in this case, presumption of ownership of Mendozas (since they are possessor) were not successfully rebutted
by evidence.

Other matters (not relevant)

Basilio brought up the falsified signature but this is irrelevant since it does not void the transfer or exchange of lands.

Basilio brought up the evidence of partition (see Basilio version no.3) where Andrea (mother of Margarita) signed as
witness. However, the Mendozas as third parties cannot be prejudiced by this document. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere
non debet. A transaction between two parties ought not to operate to the prejudice of a third person or stranger.

DISPOSITIVE:

CA Decision AFFIRMED.