The Court of Appeals (CA) has ruled that the Roman Catholic Church (Church) is the owner of the 7,163 square meters of land in Union, Nabas, Aklan where a chapel was constructed in 1903 and a survey was conducted and approved by the government in Church’s name in 1911.
In a decision issued by the CA based in Cebu City, the appellate court affirmed the Feb. 9, 2017 decision of the trial court which upheld the Church’s ownership and directed several persons to vacate portions of the property.
With the ruling, the CA dismissed the petition filed by Aproniano Dela Torre, Joel Lumbo, Merian D. Alada, Edita Dela Torre Bangcaya, Leonida Galimpin and Mainavic Galimpin.
Case records showed that in 1990, the Church allowed the group of Dela Torre to build temporary houses on certain portions of the land denominated as Lot No. 9514. However, as the years passed, their houses were renovated into concrete structures.
In 2004 on request of the Church, Dela Torre’s group agreed to vacate within one year the portions of the property they have been occupying to give way for the construction of a sacristy and a seminar hall.
When Dela Torre’s group did not move out after several years, the Church filed a civil case for quieting of title before the regional trial court (RTC) in Kalibo, Aklan. When the RTC ruled in favor of the Church, Dela Torre’s group filed a petition for review before the CA.
Quieting of title over a property is “a procedure to remove a cloud or an interest brought about by any instrument, record, claim or encumbrance....”
Dela Torre and the other petitioners told the CA that the land claimed by the Church was donated to them by their ascendants and alleged that the then parish priest suggested that their property be included in the declaration for tax exemption.
The Church, through its Parish Pastoral Council, denied that there was any agreement with Dela Torre’s group.
It also said that the land was acquired through a donation made by the late Francisca Magsipoc Matinong in 1903.
To prove its ownership, the Church presented a Sketch Plan that was signed and approved by the then Acting Director of Lands on Oct. 12, 1911, and several tax declarations in its name covering the disputed land.
Dela Torre and his group failed to present any evidence to prove ownership.
Based on evidence presented, the CA said that the Church presented the land for taxation purposes as early as 1953 “in the name of the Bishop of Jaro, then the Roman Catholic Church, then the Roman Catholic Church, Bishop of Capiz, and now in the name of the Roman Catholic Church.”
The CA said that the Church “appeared to have paid realty taxes for numerous years as shown by the several tax declarations issued in its name.”
“Although tax declarations or realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property,” it noted.
The CA, in a decision written by Associate Justice Bautista G. Corpin Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Dorothy P. Montejo Gonzaga, also said:
“Indeed, the plaintiff-appellee’s (Church) presentation of the tax declarations which all are of ancient era indicates possession in the concept of an owner by them and their predecessors-in-interests.
“The tax declarations in the name of Bishop of Jaro take on great significance because the plaintiff-appellee can tack its claim of ownership to that. Thus, from 1953 to the time of the filing of the quieting of title, the plaintiff-appellee have been in possession of Lot No. 9514 in the concept of an owner for several decades.
“As aptly observed by the RTC, even the evidence of the defendant-appellants (Dela Torre’s group) point to the plaintiff-appellee as being in actual possession of Lot No. 9514.
“On the other hand, as observed by the RTC, while the defendant-appellants may have established their actual possession of a portion of Lot No. 9514, such possession is not enough to ripen into a right of ownership.
“The law requires possession that is open, continuous, exclusive and uninterrupted in the concept of owner.
“In civil cases, basic is the rule that the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence, which means evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.
“Here, defendant-appellants failed to meet the required quantum of proof. In fact, they admitted that they do not have any documents to support their claims to the property.
“Based on the foregoing, We affirm the ruling of the RTC that the requisites for an action to quiet title are extant in this case.
“WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the RTC, Branch 8, Kalibo, Aklan, in Civil Case No. 8986, dated February 9, 2017, is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.”