Nature of prescription, the kinds and period of acquisition of rights
Gesmundo, et.al., vs. CA
321 SCRA 487 Facts: Petitioner herein, filed on 4 March 1983 a complaint against the spouses Maximina Briz and Santiago Reyes and the City Assessor of San Pablo City before the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City for annulment of certain falsified affidavits and tax declarations over a parcel of land located at Brgy. Dolores, San Pablo City. Petitioners alleged that the aforementioned property was originally declared in the name of their father Anastacio Gesmundo who died on 20 June 1974 and submitted in evidence Tax Declarations. To substantiate their claim of ownership, they further claimed that Crispin Briz, uncle of respondent Maximina Briz, was the administrator of their father, whereas Lucio Brion, cousin of respondents Brion, was subsequently designated caretaker thereon. Still further, they asserted that on account of a series of record tampering in the City Assessor's Office, Tax Declaration No. 11296 was cancelled. Respondent Maximina Briz presented the same Tax Declaration number but declared in the name of her grandmother Anastacia Gesmundo who died on 21 September 1909 leaving five (5) children. Her uncle Crispin Briz, who died in 1949, was the administrator of the property. She inherited one-fifth (1/5) portion thereof from her father in 1940 and subsequently acquired the rest by way of sale transactions. She paid the real estate taxes thereon from 1945 to 1991. Respondents Brion asserted that their property is in the name of their grandfather Esteban Maranan, and when their grandfather died, the property was transferred in the name of their mother Francisca Maranan who paid real estate taxes thereon from 1972 to 1984 and upon the death of their mother and of their father Gervacio Brion, respondents Brion possessed the property. As to who of them possessed the subject property and gathering the fruits therefrom, the trial court conducted an ocular inspection of the premises. As it turned out, the land being claimed by petitioners was located outside of the property, on the west thereof, being claimed and possessed by respondent Briz and with visible natural boundaries separating the properties. The trial court rendered judgment declaring that respondent Maximina Briz are the lawful owners of the property with an area of 7,091 square meters and respondents Rodrigo, Lope and Casimira Brion the lawful owners of the property with an area of 11,094 square meters.
Issue: Who owns the property by presentation of evidence of Tax
Declarations, Deed of Sale, and prescription
Ruling: The testimonial and documentary evidence of respondent
Briz adequately establish that the 7,091-square meter property formerly belonged to Anastacia Gesmundo, thereafter transferred to her children by inheritance until ownership thereof was consolidated in respondent Maximina Briz both as a consequence of inheritance and by sale. The name "Anastacio" in several tax declarations appears to be a typographical error by the City Assessor's Office, and find plausible the explanation of respondent Briz that she understood "Anastacio" in subsequent tax declarations to be Anastacia because she did not know Anastacio Gesmundo. Respondent Briz has been in possession of the 7,091-square meter property since 1956 through Crispulo Exconde as caretaker. Her possession was in the concept of owner. Her acts of harvesting coconuts therefrom were manifest and visible to all. She possessed the property peacefully as she was never ousted therefrom nor prevented from enjoying the fruits thereof. Her possession was uninterrupted and in good faith. There is failure on petitioners to prove their ownership of the 7,091-square meter property, and they were uncertain as to the identity thereof. A person who claims ownership of real property is duty bound to clearly identify the land being claimed in accordance with the document on which he anchors his right of ownership. Supreme Court did not sustain the ownership of respondents Brion since it relied merely on the tax declarations and tax receipts in the name of their predecessors-in-interest. They were only able to prove their own possession which began in 1984 up to the time respondent Casimira testified on 25 May 1992, which is less than the requisite period of 10 years. They failed to establish the possession of their predecessors-in-interest.