Digest Of Ganila Vs Ca 3f3n1m

Case No. 10 G.R. No. 150755 June 28, 2005 Petitioner : Rene Ganila, Eduardo Dumda-Og, Sr., Rafael ganila, Jose Pastrana, Lourdes Ganila, Florentino Ganila, Serafin Ganila, Loreto Arellano, Conrado Ganila, Vivencio Alvior, Eduardo Gantala, Amparo Villanueva, Eleuterio Silva, Adelina Ganila, Felizardo Ganila Sr., Enrique Ganila, Abraham Tanong, Emilio Alfaras Jr., Baptist Christian Learning Center Respondent :Court of Appeals and Violeta Herrera Ponente : Quisumbing Supreme Court First Division Facts: Violeta filed before MCTC 21 ejectment complaints against respondents when the latter refused to vacate Lot 1227 upon demand. Violeta alleged ownership over the lot by succession, and that she only tolerated the latter’s construction of their improvements thereon. In of her claim, Violeta presented a copy of its tax declaration. The petitioners however refuted the allegations contending it was part of the shoreline or forest, that their long-possession is not a mere tolerance since they are possessors in the concept of an owner and in good faith, and that the tax declaration is not a sufficient evidence of ownership. As agreed during the preliminary conference, the land was surveyed. The results showed that the petitioners were occupying the area. However, the counsel for the petitioners neither filed their position papers nor submitted a sufficient evidence to prove their defenses. Consequently, the MCTC adjudged in favor of Violeta which was also affirmed by the RTC. The petitioners filed a t petition for review with the Court of Appeals but was denied. Issue: Whether the tax declaration is a sufficient proof of claim of ownership Ruling: Yes. Although tax declarations or real tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession. The voluntary declaration of a property for tax purposes manifests not only one’s honest desire to obtain title to the said property and announces his adverse claim against the state and all other interested parties but also his intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such as act strengthens one’s bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership. Moreover, the allegations of the petitioners were not only unsubstantiated but also rebutted by the commissioner’s report and sketch plan which sufficiently corroborated Violeta’s allegation that petitioners were occupying the subject land in contrast with the latter’s claim of being a shoreline or social forest area.