GAUDENCIO ORDONEZ AND GENEROSA ORDONEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS & MONICO ORDONEZ, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. No. 07906 entitled, “Monico Ordonez
vs. Gaudencio Ordonez and Generosa
Ordonez,” which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite,
Branch XXI in Civil Case No. 025-83 of the same title.

Petitioner Gaudencio Ordonez and
private respondent Monico Ordonez are full blood
brothers.  This case involves two (2)
parcels of unregistered land which Monico inherited
from his parents’ estate:  (1) the “looban” which is a residential lot where the ancestral
house stands in which Monico lives, and (2) the
“tubigan,” a riceland
with an area of 55,000 square meters planted to palay
in Bo. Todlong, Kawit, Cavite.

On April 16, 1940,
private respondent sold the “tubigan” to Gaudencio for P150 and in payment of his prior indebtedness
to said petitioner of P500.  The sale is
evidenced by a duly notarized Deed of Absolute Sale.

Private respondent testified that he verbally mortgaged the
“looban” to Pedro Encarnacion
as security for a loan of P300 with the agreement that the creditor would
receive 50% of the harvest and pay the real estate taxes.  Upon private respondent’s request, Gaudencio paid P400 to Encarnacion
in settlement of the private respondent’s debt, and the said petitioner stepped
into the shoes of the former creditor, Pedro Encarnacion.  Petitioner Gaudencio
Ordonez allowed his grandson, Pablito Bernardo, and
his wife to build a house on the property.

On July 8, 1983,
the private respondent filed a complaint (1) to quiet his title over both
parcels of land (the “tubigan” and “looban“) against his older brother, herein petitioner Gaudencio, and (2) to eject the Bernardo spouses from the
“looban.”

On June 17, 1985,
the trial court rendered judgment, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered –

“1. 
Declaring that the looban as
described in the complaint belongs exclusively in ownership to plaintiff Monico Ordonez;

“2.  Declaring
that the tubigan as described in the complaint
belongs exclusively in ownership to Gaudencio
Ordonez;

“3. 
Dismissing claim for the ejectment of
spouses Pablito and Bernardita
Bernardo from the looban;

“4. 
Dismissing all the other claims of the parties for lack of
merit.” (p. 43, Rollo.)

In a decision dated March
9, 1988, the Court
of Appeals affirmed it, hence, this petition for review alleging that the Court
of Appeals erred:

1.  in
holding that the “looban” is in the possession of the private
respondent:

2.  in not holding that the
petitioner acquired it by acquisitive prescription:

3.  in
not holding that the private respondent’s cause of action is barred by
prescription or by laches; and

4.  in not holding that the
non-production of the document between the private respondent and the late
Pedro Encarnacion, to prove the nature of the
transaction between them gives rise to the presumption that it will be adverse
to the private respondent if produced.

These are factual issues. 
The Court of Appeals and the lower court correctly held that the
receipts for realty taxes paid by Encarnacion and the
petitioner Gaudencio Ordonez, on the “looban” are not evidence of title (Ramos vs. Court of
Appeals, 112 SCRA 542).  At best, they
were indicia of possession.  (Evangelista vs. Tabayuyong, 7 Phil. 607;
Casimiro vs. Fernandez, 9 Phil. 562; Elumbaring vs. Elumbaring, 12
Phil. 384.) But as against the admitted fact that private respondent was
in actual occupancy of the “looban” as he
was the one living in the ancestral home, the tax receipts of the petitioner Gaudencio may not prevail as proof of his alleged
“adverse” possession of the property that could ripen to ownership by
acquisitive prescription.

The lower court’s finding, that Gaudencio’s
possession was neither adverse nor continuous, is supported by the fact that he
admittedly had never informed private respondent, nor
any of his brothers and other relatives, that he had purchased the “looban” from Pedro Encarnacion.  Their eldest brother, Victorio
Ordonez, the boundary owner of the “looban”
on the East, and a nephew, Florencio Ordonez, who
also owns a piece of land adjacent to the “looban,”
both testified against Gaudencio and in favor of the
private respondent.

Possession, to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right,
must be possession under a claim
of title or it must be adverse (Cuayong vs. Benedicto, 37 Phil. 783). 
Furthermore, acts of a possessory character
performed by one who holds the property by mere tolerance of the owner are
clearly not in the concept of an owner, and such possessory
acts, no matter how long continued, do not start the period of prescription
running.

The private respondent’s action to quiet title is imprescriptible.  (Sapto vs. Fabiana,
103 Phil. 683; Gallar vs. Husain,
20 SCRA 186.)

It having been established that Monico
inherited the “looban” from his parents,
the burden of proving that he sold it to Encarnacion,
fell on the shoulders of Gaudencio as the supposed
transferee of Encarnacion.  That burden of proof was not discharged by
him.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of the Court of
Appeals, the petition for review is denied, with costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.