HEIRS OF LEONCIO VILLANUEVA, NAMELY, CONSORCIA VILLANUEVA, JOSE VILLANUEVA, JOINED BY HIS WIFE, REGINA VILLANUEVA; ANTONIO VILLANUEVA; DAVID VILLANUEVA, JOINED BY HIS WIFE PACEN…

Heirs of Leoncio Villanueva versus Olandio

The Case

This is a contest over a large parcel of agricultural land in Mambusao, Capiz. The Heirs of Leoncio Villanueva, holding an Original Certificate of Title and tax declarations, sued Angel Olandio and several other occupants to recover possession, while Manuel Libeta intervened and filed his own action to annul the Villanuevas' title and to be declared owner of a portion of the same land. The case matters for the Bar because it is a clean illustration of the burden of proof in civil cases, of the weight of a certificate of title against an administrative finding of fraud, and of the rule that tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership.

Procedural History

Two consolidated cases were tried before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20 of Mambusao, Capiz. The first was the Villanuevas' complaint for recovery of possession and damages. The second was Manuel Libeta's complaint for annulment of title, reconveyance, quieting of title and damages. In a decision dated January 30, 2012, the trial court dismissed the Villanuevas' complaint and declared Manuel Libeta the lawful owner of the portion designated as Lot No. 6175-A. The Heirs of Leoncio Villanueva appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning errors on the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellees filed no brief despite due notice, and the appeal was resolved on the records.

Facts

The Heirs of Leoncio Villanueva claimed ownership of Lot No. 6175, consisting of 97,350 square meters, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-6699 issued in their name in 1979. They alleged that since 1942 they had been in peaceful, continuous, public and adverse possession, planting coconuts, bananas, corn, rice and bamboo, and that in 1993 the appellees entered the land and occupied portions of it, planting crops and gathering the coconuts and bamboo. They demanded that the occupants vacate, the barangay proceedings failed, and in July 2003 they filed their complaint for recovery of possession.

The occupants answered that Angel Olandio had been a tenant of the land since 1960 under its previous owner, Opinas, and bought the property in 1993; that Gregorio Vidal likewise bought a portion from the previous owners; and that the others were tenants of Olandio and Vidal. Manuel Libeta intervened, claiming a 32,595 square meter portion which he said he bought from Jose Ortencio, whose chain of acquisition ran back through Rodrigo Luching and Apolinar Denate to the 1930s. He asserted that the Villanuevas obtained their title through fraud and misrepresentation.

The parties admitted at pre-trial the identity of the lot, the existence of the Villanuevas' certificate of title, the existence of a decision of the Regional Executive Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources recommending cancellation and reversion of that title, and that the defendants were in possession. The trial court gave credence to the administrative finding of fraud and to the appellees' deeds of sale, dismissed the Villanuevas' complaint, and declared Libeta the owner of Lot No. 6175-A.

Issues

• Whether or not there is preponderance of evidence in favor of the Heirs of Leoncio Villanueva.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for recovery of possession.
• Whether or not there exists sufficient and competent evidence to declare Manuel Libeta the lawful owner of Lot No. 6175-A.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides:

SECTION 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. – In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.

This is the measure of proof the Court applied to the Villanuevas' claim of ownership and of prior possession, and it is the standard against which their failure of evidence was weighed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Villanuevas failed to establish their case by preponderance of evidence. It stressed the basic rule that he who alleges a fact must prove it with competent evidence, and that the burden lay on the party asserting ownership and prior possession. Their evidence consisted of the certificate of title, tax declarations and tax receipts, and the testimony of Antonio Villanueva that they were dispossessed in 1993. The Court found that testimony uncorroborated by any barangay certification, and it found the delay telling: the Villanuevas let some six years pass, from the alleged dispossession in 1993 until the filing of the complaint, while the land was cultivated by others. Their conduct, the Court said, is consistent with laches and estoppel.

On the second issue, the Court found no error in the dismissal. It gave due weight to the findings of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which after investigation and ocular inspection found that the Villanuevas were never in possession and recommended cancellation of the patent, the Court noting the agency's expertise over administrative patents. It also held that tax declarations and tax receipts are not conclusive proof of ownership but mere indicia, and that in the absence of actual, public and adverse possession, a declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove ownership.

On the third issue, the Court sustained the declaration of Manuel Libeta as owner of Lot No. 6175-A. It rejected the argument that his documents referred to a different property, since the assessor's notation on the tax declaration showed the same land declared in the names of the Villanuevas, of Martin Opina and of Manuel Libeta, and since the sketch plans of both sides showed the same shape and boundaries, the municipalities of Sapian and Mambusao being adjacent.

Doctrine

• In civil cases the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence, as required by Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.
• Tax declarations and tax receipts are not conclusive proof of ownership; they are mere indicia, and without actual, public and adverse possession they do not prove ownership.
• A certificate of title does not by itself relieve the plaintiff of proving prior possession and ownership where an administrative finding of fraud in securing the patent stands and is given weight by the courts.
• An unexplained and lengthy delay in asserting a right over land, while others cultivate it, is consistent with laches and estoppel and bars the claim.

Disposition

The appeal was denied, the trial court's decision was affirmed, the Villanuevas' complaint was dismissed, Manuel Libeta was declared the lawful owner of Lot No. 6175-A, and costs were assessed against the appellants.

Remember This

Memorize the line that tax declarations are mere indicia of ownership and never conclusive proof, and that preponderance of evidence under Section 1 of Rule 133 governs civil claims of land. Examiners use this case to test the burden of proof in recovery of possession and the weight to be given to tax declarations against a Torrens title challenged for fraud.