55 Heirs of Ampil v. Sps Manahan

55 Heirs of Albina Ampil v. Sps. Manahan

FACTS: •

• •

•

• • •

Exequiel Ampil, as representative of the heirs of Albina Ampil, filed a complaint for ejectment against the anahans !"erfecto, #irginia, Teresita, Almario, and $rene%& $n the complaint, it 'as alleged that Albina 'as the o'ner of t'o adjoining residential lots in (ulacan, as evidenced b) tax declarations, and that Albina had allo'ed "erfecto and his famil) to occup) a portion of the properties, on the condition that the) 'ould vacate the same, should the need arise&  After the death of Albina, Exequiel Exequiel and the rest of of the heirs requested requested "erfecto and famil) famil) to vacate the propert), but the latter refused& refused& The *eirs sent a demand letter to the anahans to surrender possession of the lands, but to no avail& So, the *eirs filed a complaint for  ejectment before the TC& The anahans filed their Ans'er, averring that the lots belonged to them, their predecessor+in+interest having been in peaceful and continuous possession thereof since time immemorial, and that Albina 'as never the o'ner of the propert)& The TC rendered judgment in favor of the *eirs, on the basis of the tax declarations& The TC affirmed& The CA reversed, ruling that tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive proof of o'nership or right of possession, and onl) becomes strong evidence of o'nership 'hen accompanied b) proof of actual possession& The CA denied the *eirs- motion for reconsideration&

$SS.E: /ho has the better right to the ph)sical possession of the disputed propert)0 T*E *E$S&

AT$1: $n an unla'ful detainer case, the ph)sical or material possession of the propert) involved, independent of an) claim of o'nership b) an) of the parties, is the sole issue for resolution& (ut 'here the issue of o'nership is raised, the courts ma) pass upon said issue in order to determine 'ho has the right to possess the propert)& This adjudication, ho'ever, ho'ever, is onl) an initial determination of o'nership for the purpose of settling the issue of possession, the issue of o'nership being inseparabl) lin2ed thereto& As such, the lo'er court-s adjudication of o'nership in the ejectment case is merel) provisional and 'ould not bar or prejudice an action bet'een the same parties involving title to the propert)&

$n the case at bar, the Court sustains the findings of both the TC and the TC& The bare allegation of the anahans, that the) had been in peaceful and continuous possession of the lot in question because their predecessor+in+interest had been in possession thereof in the concept of  an o'ner from time immemorial, cannot prevail over the tax declarations and other documentar) evidence presented b) petitioners& $n the absence of an) supporting evidence, that of the *eirs deserves more probative value&

3ranting that the anahans or their predecessors+in+interests had been in possession in the concept of an o'ner since time immemorial, none of  them declared the lots for taxation purposes and, thus, never paid taxes thereon& The anahans4 allegation that the) 'ere in peaceful, continuous and adverse possession of the lots in question, unsupported b) an) evidence, is not substantial to establish their interest over the propert)&

/ell established is the rule that o'nership over the land cannot be acquired b) mere occupation& /hile it is true that tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of o'nership, the), nevertheless, constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the propert)& $t strengthens one4s bona fide claim of acquisition of o'nership&

RULING: CA reversed5 TC6 TC reinstated& !7udgment in favor of the *eirs%