EUBERTO F. CASALO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. ESTELA H. ARMSTRONG, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

Casalo versus Armstrong

The Case

This is the case of Casalo versus Armstrong, a complaint for recovery of possession filed by Euberto Casalo against Estela Armstrong over a four meter wide access road that the defendant fenced off with barbed wire and closed with a steel gate. Casalo claims the pathway is part of his lot; Armstrong claims she bought it from the same sellers of her adjoining land. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to restate two working rules every litigator must carry into trial: what a demurrer to evidence is for, and what a plaintiff in an action based on ownership must actually prove before the defendant is ever called to answer.

Procedural History

Casalo filed his complaint for recovery of possession before the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 72. After pre-trial and trial on the merits, where the plaintiff presented himself and one Eduardo Eito as witnesses, the defendant filed a demurrer to evidence, arguing that no evidence showed the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession. The trial court granted the demurrer in an order dated May 22, 2013, holding that the plaintiff failed to present convincing evidence that he owned the subject property. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration; the trial court denied it in an order dated September 9, 2013. The plaintiff, through new counsel, filed a notice of appeal, which the trial court approved. The appeal then reached the Supreme Court, which denied it and affirmed both assailed orders.

Facts

Casalo alleged that he owned a parcel of land in Sitio Malinta, Asinan Proper, Subic, Zambales, consisting of 1,279 square meters more or less, covered by a tax declaration in his name. He said he had possessed the land openly and continuously in the concept of owner since 2002, when he bought it from Annabelle Toledo Bedonia, and that a house on the property had been rented out since then. In October 2009, he went to check the property and discovered that the defendant, taking advantage of his absence, had fenced with barbed wire the four meter wide private access road leading to the barangay road and installed a metal gate, denying him access. He claimed the road is part of his lot as shown in a survey plan issued by the environment department's office in Olongapo City. He brought the matter to the barangay, no settlement was reached, and a certificate to file action was issued. A demand letter to remove the fence and gate went unheeded.

Armstrong answered that the property was titled in the name of another person. She claimed she acquired her own 979 square meter lot by a waiver of rights over a real property in September 2000, and that she acquired the four meter wide area on the same date from the same sellers. She said she had occupied the area since then, built the road for her use, and erected the fence and steel gate. She insisted the environment department's survey plan was without basis, because once a title is issued to another person the department's administrative authority over that land ceases.

At trial, the plaintiff presented a tax declaration for the year 2003 and a sketch map from the environment department, together with his own testimony and that of Eduardo Eito. The trial court found that neither the tax declaration nor the sketch map showed that the disputed pathway was within his property, and it did not credit the claim that the area had been a private road.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in granting the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to present convincing evidence that the subject property is within the lot he owns.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in concluding that the plaintiff failed to present competent witnesses, such as a licensed or government surveyor, on the boundary of his property.
• Whether or not it was the defendant's burden, by preponderance of evidence, to prove that the four meter pathway was included in the sale of her 979 square meter property.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 33 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. — After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.

This is the procedural rule under which the trial court dismissed the complaint and against which the Supreme Court measured the plaintiff's evidence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court denied the appeal and sustained the trial court. It synthesized the doctrine on demurrers: the question is whether the plaintiff, by his evidence in chief, established a prima facie case, meaning evidence sufficiently strong for the opponent to be called on to answer it. The Court noted that the complaint squarely put ownership in issue and could properly be treated as an action for recovery of possession based on ownership, which requires the plaintiff to prove not only his ownership but also the identity of the property claimed by describing its location, area, and boundaries. The tax declaration did not carry the burden, because tax declarations do not prove ownership but are at best an indicia of a claim of ownership, and the one presented covered only the year 2003 and did not indicate that the disputed property was part of his lot. The sketch map and technical description likewise failed, because the existence of a sketch plan is no proof in itself of ownership, the certification merely stated that the tract was within alienable or disposable land without categorically placing the disputed property within it, and a survey plan prepared at the instance of a party is self serving. The Court held that the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations, and that a claim must rest on the strength of the plaintiff's own evidence, not on the weakness of the defense.

On the second issue, the Court found no cogent reason to disturb the trial court's evaluation of the evidence, holding that the bare allegations of the plaintiff and his witness, without convincing proof, could not sustain the complaint.

On the third issue, the Court held the argument untenable. It is premature to speak of preponderance of evidence in a demurrer to evidence, because the demurrer is filed before the defendant presents any evidence, and its very purpose is to terminate the case expeditiously without the defendant's evidence. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

Demurrer to evidence authorizes a judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant having to submit evidence on his part as he would ordinarily have to do, if plaintiff's evidence shows that he is not entitled to the relief sought.

It added that a demurrer should be sustained where the totality of the plaintiff's evidence, with all inferences reasonably drawn in his favor, does not warrant recovery, or where the plaintiff's evidence is prima facie insufficient for a recovery.

Doctrine

A demurrer to evidence asks one question only: did the plaintiff, on his evidence in chief, establish a prima facie case, that is, evidence strong enough to require the defendant to answer? If the totality of the plaintiff's evidence, admitting every proven fact favorable to him and every fair inference, fails to make out a material element of his case, the demurrer must be sustained under Section 1 of Rule 33.

In an action for recovery of possession based on ownership, the plaintiff must prove both his ownership and the identity of the property, describing its location, area, and boundaries. Tax declarations and tax payments are not proof of ownership but at best an indicia of a claim; a sketch plan or technical description prepared at the instance of the party is self serving and proves nothing by itself.

The burden of proof rests on the party who alleges, and he must prevail on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the opponent's defense. Preponderance of evidence is out of place in a demurrer, because the defendant has not yet presented evidence.

Disposition

The appeal was denied; the Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the Olongapo City Regional Trial Court granting the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the complaint for recovery of possession, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a demurrer to evidence is resolved on whether the plaintiff's evidence in chief established a prima facie case, and tax declarations and self serving sketch plans do not prove ownership. Examiners use this case in remedial law on demurrers to evidence and in civil law on the probative value of tax declarations in recovery of possession suits.