SECONDDIVISION

DOLORESPINTIANOANNO,G.R.No.163743
Petitioner,
Present:
Puno,J.,
Chairman,
versusSandovalGutierrez,
Corona,
Azcuna,and
Garcia,JJ.

ALBERTANNO(deceased)andPromulgated:
PATENIOSUANDING,
Respondents.January27,2006
xx

DECISION

PUNO,J.:

ThisisanappealfromtheDecisionandResolutionoftheCourtofAppeals,datedJanuary
23,2004andMay24,2004,respectively,affirmingtheDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt
(RTC)ofLaTrinidad,Benguet,whichdismissedthecomplaintforcancellationoftransfer
documentsanddamages,withprayerforpreliminaryinjunction,filedbypetitionerDolores
PintianoAnnobeforetheMunicipalTrialCourt(MTC).
First, the facts. Petitioner Dolores PintianoAnno and respondent Albert Anno (spouses
Anno) were married on January 23, 1963. No children were born out of their marriage.
Petitionercontendsthatduringtheirmarriage,theyacquireda4hectarepublic,unregistered,
virgin, agricultural land in Lamut, Becket, La Trinidad, Benguet. In 1974, the land was
declaredfortaxpurposessolelyinthenameofherhusband,respondentAlbertAnno,
undertaxdeclarationno.12242.Petitionercontendsthatsheandherspousehadbeenin

open,continuous,exclusiveandnotoriouspossessionandoccupationofthesubjectlandthat
theybothworkedontheland,and,thattheyalsohiredacaretakertooverseeit.The1985tax
declarationdescribedthelandascamotalanddecreaseditsareato2.6735hectaresasaresult
oftaxmapping.

Petitionercontendsthatwithoutherknowledge,respondentAlbertexecutedtwodocuments
oftransfercoveringthesubjectland.InanAffidavitofWaiver,datedJanuary30,1996,
respondent Albert waived and quitclaimed in favor of petitioners first cousin, respondent
Patenio Suanding, his rights over a portion of the subject land. More than a year later,
respondentAlbertconveyedtorespondentSuandingtheremainderofthelandinaDeed of
Sale,datedNovember29,1997.Inbothdocuments,respondentAlbertdeclaredthathe
isthelawfulownerandpossessorofthesubjectland.Thus,thedocumentsoftransferdid
notbearthesignatureandwrittenconsentofpetitionerasthewifeofthevendor,respondent
Albert.Thereafter,thesubjectlandwastransferredbyrespondentSuandingtothirdpersons,
MyrnaNazarroandSilardoBested.

PetitionerfiledacaseagainstrespondentsAlbertAnnoandSuandingwiththeMTCofLa
Trinidad,Benguet,forCancellationoftheWaiverofRights,DeedofSaleandTransferTax
Declarations,andDamages,withaprayerforissuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunction.In
[1]
hercomplaint, petitionerallegedthatthesubjectlandbelongstotheconjugalpartnership
of spouses Anno, and thus could not have been validly conveyed by respondent Albert to
respondentSuandingwithoutherwrittenconsentasspouse.

[2]
Respondent Albert did not file an Answer. For his part, respondent Suanding took the
stand.HetestifiedthatrespondentAlbertrepresentedtohimthatthelandwashisexclusive
propertyasthelandwaspartofhisinheritanceandhehadbeeninpossessionthereofpriorto
[3]
hismarriagetopetitioner.Helikewisepresenteda1997Certificate fromtheOfficeofthe
Municipal Assessor of La Trinidad, Benguet, stating that no improvements were listed in

theirrecordsasintroducedbyrespondentAnnoonthesubjectland.

Aftertrial,theMTCruledinfavorofpetitioner.Itfoundthatbothpartiesfailed
to sufficiently prove by convincing evidence the nature of ownership of the subject
land.However,theMTCappliedArticle116oftheFamilyCodeandruledthatthesubject
land is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership of spouses Anno. It held that the
conveyanceofthelandtorespondentSuandingwasvoidasitwasdonewithoutthemarital
[4]
consentofpetitioner,thewifeofvendorrespondentAlbert.

RespondentSuandingappealedtotheRTCofLaTrinidad,Benguet.Hemaintainedthatthe
subject land is the exclusive property of respondent Albert Anno. The RTC found for
[5]
respondentSuanding. Itruledthataspetitionerfailedtoadduceevidencethatthesubject
land was acquired by the spouses during their marriage, the presumption that the property
belongstotheirconjugalpartnershipcouldnotbemadetoapply.TheRTCthusdeclaredthe
land to be the exclusive property of the vendor, respondent Albert Anno, which he could
validlysellwithouttheconsentofpetitionerspouse.

[6]
TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthedecisionoftheRTC. Itlikewisefoundpetitioners
evidence insufficient to prove that the subject land was acquired by spouses Anno during
theirmarriage.

Hence,thispetition.
The issue in the case at bar is whether the subject land belongs to the conjugal
partnership of gains of spouses Anno and thus cannot be validly conveyed by one spouse
withouttheconsentoftheother.

Wefindnomeritinthepetition.

Indeed,allpropertyofthemarriageispresumedtobeconjugalinnature.

[7]
However,

forthispresumptiontoapply,thepartywhoinvokesitmustfirstprovethatthepropertywas
acquired during the marriage. Proof of acquisition during the coverture is a condition sine
[8]
quanontotheoperationofthepresumptioninfavoroftheconjugalpartnership.
To prove that spouses Anno acquired the subject land during their marriage, petitioner
presented her 1963 marriage contract with respondent Albert and the initial 1974 tax
declarationovertheproperty.Shelikewisetestifiedthatsheandherhusbanddiligentlypaid
thetaxesthereonandworkedontheland.

However,acarefulexaminationoftherecordsshowsthatpetitionersevidencefailed
toprovethatthesubjectlandbelongstotheconjugalpartnershipofspousesAnno.
Itisabasicruleinevidencethathewhoallegestheaffirmativeofanissuehastheburdenof
proof.Theplaintiffmustproduceapreponderanceofevidencethereon,relyingonthe
[9]
strengthofhisownevidenceandnotupontheweaknessofthedefendants.

Inthecaseatbar,wefindthatpetitionerfailedtosubstantiatebypreponderanceofevidence
herclaimthatthesubjectlandwasconjugalinnature.Petitionerdidnotidentifywhenshe
andherhusband,respondentAlbert,firstoccupiedandpossessedtheland.Neitherdid
shepresentanywitnesstoprovethattheyfirstoccupiedthelandduringtheirmarriageand
thattheybothworkedontheland.Whilepetitionerclaimedthattheyalsohiredacaretaker
tooverseetheland,therecordsshowthatthecaretakerwasappointedonlyin1989.Indeed,
even the documentary evidence adduced by petitioner failed to show when exactly the
spousesAnnofirsttookpossessionoftheland.Whiletheinitialtaxdeclarationshepresented
wasdated1974,itcannotbeautomaticallydeducedtherefromthatoccupationofthesubject
land was likewise done in the same year. To so conclude will amount to speculation or
conjecture on the part of the court. As correctly pointed out by the appellate court,
declarationofalandfortaxationpurposescannotbeequatedwithitsacquisitionfor,inthe

ordinary course of things, occupation of a piece of land usually comes prior to the act of
declaring it for tax purposes. More importantly, the 1974 tax declaration presented by
petitionercannotbemadeabasistoproveitsconjugalnatureasthelandwasdeclaredfortax
purposes solely in the name of her husband, respondent Albert, who sold the land as his
exclusive property. In a long line of cases, this Court has held that tax declarations,
[10]
especially of untitled lands, are credible proof of claim of ownership
and are good
[11]
indiciaofpossessionintheconceptofanowner.

TheforegoingcircumstancesdonotshowwhenthepropertywasacquiredbyspousesAnno.
The presumption of the conjugal nature of the property allegedly acquired by the spouses
[12]
Anno during the subsistence of their marriage cannot be applied.
Consequently, we
upholdthefindingsoftheCourtofAppealsthatthesubjectlandistheexclusiveproperty
ofrespondentAlbertAnnowhichhecouldvalidlydisposeofwithouttheconsentofhis
wife.

INVIEWWHEREOF,thepetitionisDISMISSED.Nopronouncementastocosts.

SOORDERED.

REYNATOS.PUNO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ
AssociateJustice

RENATOC.CORONAADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

CANCIOC.GARCIA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
AssociateJustice
Chairman,SecondDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairmans
Attestation,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedin
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

CARollo,pp.95100.
RespondentAlbertdiedduringthependencyofthecase.
OriginalRecords,p.150.
Decision,datedMay30,2000Rollo,pp.3944.
CARollo,pp.5964.
Decision,datedJanuary23,2004,penned by AssociateJustice EloyR.Bello, Jr. andconcurred in by
AssociateJusticesAmelitaG.TolentinoandArturoD.BrionRollo,pp.3338.
Article160,CivilCode.
SpousesEstonina v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 577 (1997)Torela v. Torela, 93 SCRA 391 (1979)
PonceDeLeonv.RehabilitationFinancesCorporation,36SCRA289(1970).

SpousesAspiv.CourtofAppeals,236SCRA94(1994),citingJisonv.CourtofAppeals,286SCRA
495(1998).

[10]

[11]

[12]

Manongsong v. Estimo, 404 SCRA 683 (2003) Ranola v. Court of Appeals, 322 SCRA 1 (2000)
DirectorofLandsv.IAC,209SCRA214(1992).
HeirsofAnastacioFabelav.CourtofAppeals,362SCRA531(2001).
Franciscov.CourtofAppeals,359Phil.520(1998).