Rizal Cement Co., Inc. vs Villareal [G.R. No. L-30272] Case Digest

 

Rizal Cement Co., Inc. vs Villareal

G.R. No. L-30272

 

Facts:

Respondents (Consuelo Villareal and others) filed in the CFI of Rizal in Pasig an Application for Registration of  the land consists of two agricultural lots bounded and described as Lots Nos. 1 and 2.  The said lots were subjects for taxation.  That the respondents alleged that they acquired said lands by purchase froms sps Cervo as evidenced by a Deed of Sale executed by the latter in favor of the former, before Notary Public for the City of Manila.

Petitioner filed an OPPOSITION to said application alleging — That the Rizal Cement Co., Inc. is the owner of unregistered three (3) parcels of land known as Lots Nos. 1, 2 and 4, located in Darangan, Binangonan Rizal. That the oppositor Rizal Cement Co., Inc. is in possession of said land and has been religiously paying the real estate tax in the Municipality of Binangonan, Rizal from the time it had acquired said property from the previous owner.

CFI deny the application for registration and order the issuance of a decree of registration after finality of said decision in the name of Rizal Cement Company. CA reversed CFI decision.

 

Issue:

Whether or not CA erred in stressing that the evidence of petitioner (then oppositor) was weak to substantiate its claim.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

Being an attribute of ownership, appellants' possession of the land in question goes far to tip the scale in their favor. The right to possess flows from ownership. No person wig suffer adverse possession by another of what belongs to him. Were the oppositor- appellee rightful owner of the land in question, it would not have allowed the tenants to cultivate the land and give the owner's share to appellants and/or their predecessors.

Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right or by the fact it is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right.

Petitioner's evidence, consisting of tax receipts, tax declaration and survey plan are not conclusive and indisputable basis of one's ownership of the property in question. Assessment alone is of little value as proof of title. Mere tax declaration does not vest ownership of the property upon the declarant.  Settled is the rule that neither tax receipts nor declaration of ownership for taxation purposes alone constitutes sufficient evidence of ownership or of the right to possess realty. They must be supported by other effective proofs.  Neither can the survey plan or technical descriptions prepared at the instance of the party concerned be considered in his favor, the same being self-serving.