REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. T.A.N. PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent. [G.R. NO.
154953 : June 26, 2008]
“x x x.
There was No
Open, Continuous, Exclusive, and Notorious
Possession and Occupation in the Concept of an Owner
Petitioner alleges that the trial
court's reliance on the testimonies of Evangelista and Torres was misplaced.
Petitioner alleges that Evangelista's statement that the possession of
respondent's predecessors-in-interest was open, public, continuous, peaceful,
and adverse to the whole world was a general conclusion of law rather than
factual evidence of possession of title. Petitioner alleges that respondent
failed to establish that its predecessors-in-interest had held the land openly,
continuously, and exclusively for at least 30 years after it was declared
alienable and disposable.
We agree with petitioner.
Evangelista testified that Kabesang
Puroy had been in possession of the land before 1945. Yet, Evangelista only
worked on the land for three years. Evangelista testified that his family owned
a lot near Kabesang Puroy's land. The Court of Appeals took note of this and
ruled that Evangelista's knowledge of Kabesang Puroy's possession of the land
stemmed "not only from the fact that he had worked thereat but more so
that they were practically neighbors."32 The Court of Appeals observed:
In a small community
such as that of San Bartolome, Sto. Tomas, Batangas, it is not difficult to
understand that people in the said community knows each and everyone. And,
because of such familiarity with each other, news or events regarding the
acquisition or disposition for that matter, of a vast tract of land spreads
like wildfire, thus, the reason why such an event became of public knowledge to
them.33
Evangelista testified that Kabesang
Puroy was succeeded by Fortunato. However, he admitted that he did not know the
exact relationship between Kabesang Puroy and Fortunato, which is rather
unusual for neighbors in a small community. He did not also know the
relationship between Fortunato and Porting. In fact, Evangelista's testimony is
contrary to the factual finding of the trial court that Kabesang Puroy was succeeded
by his son Antonio, not by Fortunato who was one of Antonio's children. Antonio
was not even mentioned in Evangelista's testimony.
The
Court of Appeals ruled that there is no law that requires that the testimony of
a single witness needs corroboration. However, in this case, we find
Evangelista's uncorroborated testimony insufficient to prove that respondent's
predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land in the concept of
an owner for more than 30 years. We cannot consider the testimony of Torres as
sufficient corroboration. Torres testified primarily on the fact of
respondent's acquisition of the land. While he claimed to be related to the
Dimayugas, his knowledge of their possession of the land was hearsay. He did
not even tell the trial court where he obtained his information.
The
tax declarations presented were only for the years starting 1955. While tax
declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they constitute proof of
claim of ownership.34 Respondent
did not present any credible explanation why the realty taxes were only paid
starting 1955 considering the claim that the Dimayugas were allegedly in
possession of the land before 1945. The payment of the realty taxes starting
1955 gives rise to the presumption that the Dimayugas claimed ownership or
possession of the land only in that year.
X x x.”
