2. RIZAL CEMENT CO., INC. v. VILLAREAL (G.R. No. L- 30272.

February (Petitioner (Villareal) then prayed that the aforesaid parcels be

28,1985) brought under the operation of the Land Registration Act, and to have the
title thereto confirmed and registered in their names.)
DOCTRINE: Neither tax receipts nor declaration of ownership for taxation
purposes alone constitutes sufficient evidence of ownership or of the right to possess Petitioner (Rizal Cement Co., Inc) filed an OPPOSITION to said application
realty. They must be supported by other effective proofs. Neither can the survey plan alleging — that the Rizal Cement Co., Inc. is the owner of unregistered three (3)
or technical descriptions prepared at the instance of the party concerned be parcels of land known as Lots Nos. 1, 2 and 4, located in Darangan, Binangonan
considered in his favour, the same being self-serving. Rizal. That the oppositor, Rizal Cement Co., Inc. is in possession of said land and
has been religiously paying the real estate tax in the Municipality of Binangonan,
Facts: Rizal from the time it had acquired said property from the previous owner.

Sometime in December 1955, private respondents (Villareal) filed with the then Petitioner then prayed that the said petition be dismissed.
Court of First Instance of Rizal in Pasig, an Application for Registration of land,
alleging, inter alia: Private respondent (Villareal), in REPLY to said OPPOSITION, countered that the
whole three (3) parcels of land known as Lots Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of Plan Psu-2260 do
1. That the said land consists of two agricultural lots bounded and not belong to the petitioner; that a portion of Lot No. 1 consisting of 6,133 square
described as shown on plan Psd-147662 as Lots Nos. 1 and 2. meters and portion of Lot No. 4 consisting of 19,916 square meters belong to them;
that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in continuous, adverse and
2. That Said lots were subject to tax; open possession of said portion since time immemorial; and that they have been
religiously paying the real estate taxes thereon.
3. That to the best of their knowledge and belief, there is no
mortgage or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever affecting said After trial, the CFI denied the application for registration of respondents and ordered
parcels of land nor is there any person having any estate or the issuance of a decree of registration in the name of Rizal Cement Co, after
interest thereon, legal or equitable in possession, remainder, finality of said decision. Respondents appealed to the CA, which reversed and set
reversion or expectancy; aside the CFI’s decision in favour of the respondents. The CA denied Rizal’s MR,
hence this petition.
4. That the applicants have acquired said lands by purchase from the
spouses VICTORIANO CERVO and IGNACIA GUILLERMO as ISSUE: Whether the respondents (Villareal) had been in actual possession of the
evidenced by a Deed of Sale executed by the latter in favor of the land in question.
former, before Notary Public for the City of Manila, Mr. Manuel M.
Parades on the 3rd day of November, 1955, per Doc. No. 352, Page HELD: YES. As to who had been in actual possession of the land in question, the
No. 42, Book No. II, Series of 1955; CA gave credence to the testimony of the witnesses for respondents applicants,
namely: (a) Santiago Picadizo — one of the tenants of the land from the time it was
5. That the said parcels of land are not occupied by anybody; owned by Maria Certeza up to the present. He stated that he knew for a fact that the
lots in question were given to Justice Mariano de Joya as attorney's fees, who in turn
8. That the said lots included in this application adjoins the National sold the same to Ignacia Guillermo; that from the tune he started working as tenant,
Road and the applicants do not claim any part of the said National he successively gave the share of the harvests to Maria Certeza; and that during all
Road; the time that the parcels of land were possessed by the previous owners, no other
persons ever claimed ownership of the property.
(b) Isaac Reyes — who started working on one-half of the 2 parcels of land since proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. Petitioner's
1934 up to the present, and declared that there was no other person other than evidence, consisting of tax receipts, tax declaration and survey plan are not
Ignacia Guillermo who claimed ownership of the parcels in litigation; and conclusive and indisputable basis of one's ownership of the property in question.
Assessment alone is of little value as proof of title. Mere tax declaration does not
(c) Mr. Valentin Marqueza — rebuttal witness who averred that he began to live in vest ownership of the property upon the declarant. Settled is the rule that neither tax
Darangan, Binangonan, Rizal since 1910; that he bought a portion of his land from receipts nor declaration of ownership for taxation purposes alone constitutes
Maria Certeza when he was working with Rizal Cement Company in 1924; that the sufficient evidence of ownership or of the right to possess realty. They must be
sale was evidenced by an absolute Deed of Sale; that he occupied the portion sold to supported by other effective proofs. Neither can the survey plan or technical
him up to 1931; that ever since he possessed the property there were no other descriptions prepared at the instance of the party concerned be considered in his
adverse claimants thereto; that he saw a small house on a portion of the land of favor, the same being self-serving.
Maria Certeza built by Rizal Cement Company who intended to make a location
where it could built a factory; that after 4 to 5 months, the small house was removed, The only documentary evidence which the Rizal Cement may capitalize for its claim
after which, this witness purchased that portion from Maria Certeza; that during his of ownership is the notation in applicants' plan Exhibit D that the lots in question are
stay in Darangan, the company did not take possession of the land; that Maria portions of a previous survey made in 1911 for oppositor, Plan Psu-2260. The
Certeza had the possession of the land until her death and that the tenants gave the survey plan however has no original record in the Bureau of Lands. Be that as it
harvest of the land to Maria Certeza. may, survey plans merely delimit areas sought to be registered. Besides, the
annotation relied upon by the lower court in its judgment in favor of the oppositor is
The right to possess flows from ownership. No person will suffer adverse possession nothing more than what it imports - a previous survey. Neither the plan nor its
by another of what belongs to him. Were the Rizal Cement Co. the rightful owner of approval carried with it any adjudication of ownership. The, Director of Lands
the land in question, it would not have allowed the tenants to cultivate the land and through approval merely certifies that the survey has been made in accordance with
give the owner's share to appellants and/or their predecessors. It would have approved methods and regulations in force. (Philippine Executive Commission vs.
opposed the survey for applicants' vendors on May 21 and 28, 1950 and July 31, Antonio, CA-G.R. No. 8456, February 12, 1943)
1955, but did not as shown in the surveyor's certificate, Exhibit E. If Rizal really
bought Lot 2 from Maria Certeza in 1909 as claimed, it has not been explained how
she could sell a portion thereof to Apolonia Francisco, married to Valentin Marquez
for P100.00 on April 15, 1924 by deed, Exhibit R,-an ancient document -as
confirmed by the husband in his deposition who as employee of oppositor would
have known of its acquisition. On the other hand, applicants' vendors in mortgaging
the two lots to Pedro Picones in 1952, Exhibits 0 and 01, for P11, 000.00, exercised
a dominical act; and Aniano Bautista's testimony that the Cervos were not owners of
the land challenges belief since Bautista was a witness to Exhibits 0 and 0-1, being
uncle of Picones.

Very significantly petitioner Rizal Cement did not present any witness in actual
possession of the land in question.

As aptly found by the appellate court, respondents possess the property in the
concept of an owner. Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or
the exercise of a right or by the fact it is subject to the action of our will, or by the