SERIÑA vs.
VICTOR CABALLERO
FACTS:
On August 11, 1982, Dr . Jesus Seriña and his wife, Enriqueta Seriña filed a Complaint for quieting of title,
recovery of possession, and damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against respondents
Victor Caballero and his tenants, T eodoro Donela and Oliver Donela.
Seriñas alleged in their complaint that they are the absolute owners and have been in actual and constructive
possession of the land for 35 years. They averred that sometime in March 1982, they discovered that respondent
Caballero was claiming ownership over the said land and offering it for sale or mortgage to third parties. They also
discovered that the respondents Donela were occupying the land as tenants and caretakers of the land.
The petitioners claimed that their father, Dr . Seriña, bought the land from Lucia Vda. de Marbella who inherited it
from her father, Ramon Neri. They presented a Deed of Sale 6 dated August 23, 1947 showing that Dr . Seriña bought 5
hectares of ricefield, bounded on the North by Raymundo Seriña, on the East by Teofilo Saburnido, on the South
by Obdelio Caballero, on the West by Obdullo Caballero from Lucia Vda. de Marbella.
In his answer, respondent Caballero alleged that he was the lawful owner, and had been in actual physical possession of
the disputed land since time immemorial. He averred that the disputed land is part of Cadastral Lot originally owned by
his grandfather, Eustaquio Caballero. They averred that Eustaqio Caballero declared the entire parcel of land for tax
purposes. This tax declaration indicated that the 119,490 square-meter parcel of land was located at Pontacon,
Iponan, Cagayan de Oro City, bounded on North by Rustico Dablio, on the East by J. Seriña and T. Saburnido, on the
South by Victor Obsioma, and on the West by Victorino Caballero.
RTC - in favor of Caballero (the boundaries of the land stated in complaint did not coincide with what was stated in the
Deed of Sale and that it was not clearly shown that the land bought by Dr. Serina was the same land owned by Victor
Caballero)
CA - affirmed decision of RTC
ISSUE/s:
The issues in this petition are, therefore, the following: (1) whether the petitioners were able to establish the
identity of the land being claimed by them; and (2) whether acquisitive prescription should be appreciated in
favor of the petitioners.
SC:
The CA was correct in concluding that the petitioners failed to establish that the parcel of land in the possession of the
respondents is the same as that subject of their complaint. The CA noted that the land subject of the complaint has
boundaries different from the land in possession of the respondents. In fact, the land described in the complaint
appears to be different from the land described in the Deed of Sale which the petitioners invoke as the basis of their
ownership.
The complaint 24 of the petitioners states that the property they are claiming has an area of 2.5 hectares. On
the other hand, the Deed of Sale provides that the subject property has an area of 5 hectares. The complaint alleged
that the property is located in "Mantadiao, Opol, Misamis Oriental," while the Deed of Sale shows that the property
purchased is located in "Puntakon, Igpit, Cagayan Or. Misamis." We agree with the CA that there was no showing that
Tax Declaration No. 2442 in the name of Eustaquio Caballero was cancelled. Absent any specific statement therein
to that effect, it cannot be presumed that Tax Declaration No. 4029 in the name of Dr. Seriña cancelled Tax Declaration
No. 2442. Moreover, the land covered by Tax Declaration No. 2442 is different from that covered by Tax
Declaration No. 4029.
The documentary and testimonial evidence presented by the petitioners did not prove the identity of the land being
claimed. The petitioners did not present evidence to prove that the land registered in the name of Eustaquio Caballero
was sold to Lucia Vda. de Marbella or her predecessor-in-interest from whom they purchased the land subject of their
complaint. The failure to establish the identity of the land is obviously fatal to the petitioners' case. In Beo vs. Court of
Appeals,
Corollarily, the rule is likewise well-settled that in order that an action for recovery of possession may
prosper, it is indispensable that he who brings the action fully proves not only his ownership but also the
identity of the property claimed, by describing the location, area and boundaries thereof. As the appellate
court succinctly stated, he who claims to have a better right to the property must clearly show that the
land possessed by the other party is the very land that belongs to him.
On the second issue, the CA ruled that inasmuch as the petitioners failed to establish that the parcel of land in
possession of the respondents is the same as the subject of their complaint, their claim of acquisitive prescription is
clearly untenable.
We agree with the respondents. Since the property has not been clearly identified by the petitioners, their claim of
acquisitive prescription cannot be considered. Insufficient identification of the portion of land claimed in absolute
ownership cannot ripen into ownership. Possession as a means of acquiring ownership, while it may be constructive, is
not a mere fiction. Assuming, however, that the disputed land has been clearly identified, acquisitive prescription will
still not lie in favor of the petitioners because they were not able to prove that they have been in possession of the
property for the requisite number of years. Prescription requires public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse
possession of the property in the concept of an owner for ten years, in case the possession is in good faith and with just
title.
The petitioners' argument that the payment of taxes on the property since May 31, 1948 constitutes proof of their
possession of the subject land for thirty-five years is untenable. Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive
evidence of ownership. At most, they constitute mere prima facie proof of ownership of the property for which
taxes have been paid. In the absence of actual, public and adverse possession, the declaration of the land for tax
purposes does not prove ownership.
