HEIR OF CARDENAS v.

THE CHRISTIAN AND MISSIONARY ALLIANCE CHURCHES

OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 222614, March 20, 2019, Second Division (Caguioa, J.)

DOCTRINE
While Tax Declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership, at the very least they
are proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property and serve as sufficient basis for
inferring possession. Hence, the burden has then shifted to CAMACOP to prove that while the
certificate of title covering the subject property is still registered in the names of the Sps.
Cardenas, the ownership of the subject property had not remained with the Sps. Cardenas and
had been validly transferred to it through a contract of sale in 1962.

FACTS
Remedios, heir of Sps. Cardenas, represented by her daughter and attorney-in-fact,
Janet, filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Use of Real Property and Damages
against The Christian and Missionary Alliance Churches of the Philippines, Inc. (CAMACOP).

In her Complaint, Janet alleged that her mother Remedios is the heir of the late Sps.
Cardenas, who are the registered owners of a parcel of land in Midsayap, Cotabato, covered
by a TCT and with Tax Declaration; and that the subject property is adjacent to a lot owned
by CAMACOP where its church is located and constructed.

Janet further alleged that sometime in the year 1962, CAMACOP unlawfully occupied
the subject property for their church activities and functions; that CAMACOP continues to
unlawfully occupy the subject property to the damage and prejudice of Janet despite
repeated demands to vacate.

Respondents admitted in their Answer that Cardenas is the registered owner of the
subject property, which is adjacent to the lot owned by the CAMACOP. However, they aver
that their occupation of the subject property is not illegal since they had lawfully purchased
it from its registered owners (referring to Pastora), who surrendered the owner's duplicate
copy to the representative of the church.

Respondents alleged that on May 31, 1962, Atty. Rodofolo T. Calud (Calud), counsel
and representative of CAMACOP, sent the owner's duplicate copy of the subject property to
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and four (4) copies of the Deed of Sale,
signed by the registered owners, for the Secretary's prior approval, pursuant to
Commonwealth Act 141. They further asseverate that their continued occupation of the
subject property for a period of forty-seven (47) years had reduced the claim as barred by
prescription and the inaction of Janet for such period of time had rendered their claim as a
stale demand which is barred by laches.

The RTC dismissed the complaint ruling that CAMACOP was able to provide
sufficient documentary and testimonial evidence that the subject property was indeed sold
to it by Pastora, the predecessor-in-interest of Janet and Remedios. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the RTC and denied the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE
Who between the Heir of Sps. Cardenas (Remedios, as represented by Janet) and
CAMACOP has a better right to possess the subject property?

RULING
Remedios. It is an admitted fact that the subject property is still registered in the
names of Pastora T. Cardenas and Eustaquio Cardenas." It is also an admitted fact that "the
same lot is still declared for tax purposes in the name of the plaintiffs Pastora Cardenas and
Eustaquio Cardenas." While Tax Declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership, at the
very least they are proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property and serve as
sufficient basis for inferring possession. Hence, the burden has then shifted to CAMACOP to
prove that while the certificate of title covering the subject property is still registered in the
names of the Sps. Cardenas, the ownership of the subject property had not remained with
the Sps. Cardenas and had been validly transferred to it through a contract of sale in 1962.

In asserting that the subject property was sold by Pastora to CAMACOP, the latter
relies on the existence of a Deed of Sale purportedly executed in 1962. CAMACOP however
maintains that, since all of the copies of this alleged Deed of Sale had been supposedly lost,
it had to resort to the presentation of secondary evidence to prove the existence of this
Deed of Sale.

According to Section 5, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, when the original
document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon
proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on
his part, may prove its contents by presenting secondary evidence: (1) a copy of the lost
document, (2) by a recital of the contents of the lost document in some authentic document,
or (3) by a testimony of a witnesses, in the order stated.

CAMACOP was not able to provide any sufficient secondary evidence to establish the
existence and contents of the supposed 1962 Deed of Sale covering the subject property.
First, CAMACOP was not able to present even a photocopy or any other copy of the
purported Deed of Sale. Second, according to CAMACOP, the purported Deed of Sale is
recorded in the Notarial Register of Atty. Calud. If this is true, then Atty. Calud would have
easily been able to produce a copy of the purported Deed of Sale. Third, the secondary
evidence presented by CAMACOP are all unavailing.

None of these documents contains a recital of the contents of the purported Deed of
Sale, as required under the Revised Rules on Evidence. At most, the documents presented
merely mention that copies of the purported Deed of Sale were supposedly transmitted to
the DANR.

As for the several letters of Atty. Calud addressed to the DANR Secretary, such
documents are grossly insufficient to prove both the existence and contents of the
purported Deed of Sale. These letters are completely self-serving documents. A man cannot
make evidence for himself by writing a letter authored by himself containing the
statements that he wishes to prove.
 As to the Letter authored by one Marcos, Assistant Chief Legal Officer for the DANR
Secretary, addressed to the then Director of Lands, there is nothing in the said document
that mentioned or acknowledged the transmittal of the documents to the DANR Secretary.
The letter merely showed that the DANR Secretary asked the then Director of Lands to look
into the matter. In fact, this letter is unsigned, creating much doubt as to its authenticity.

With respect to the Sworn Affidavit of Madrigal and Letter of Repollo addressed to
Pabrua, EVP-DAF, not only are they in the nature of self-serving statements coming from
representatives of CAMACOP, it must also be stressed that they are clearly hearsay
evidence with respect to the purpose of proving the existence and contents of the
purported Deed of Sale. These individuals have absolutely no personal knowledge as to the
preparation and execution of the purported Deed of Sale itself.

To make matters worse, the secondary evidence presented by CAMACOP are all
inauthentic and inadmissible documents. The records show that the secondary evidence
presented by CAMACOP are all mere photocopies. According to the Revised Rules on
Evidence, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.
CAMACOP did not provide any sufficient justification as to its failure to present the original
copies of the documents.

Furthermore, the documents were not properly authenticated. All of CAMACOP's

documentary evidence were identified and authenticated by its first witness, Repollo, who
is a member of CAMACOP.

According to Section 20, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence before any
private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either by (a) anyone who saw the document executed or
written or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

In the instant case, it is readily admitted that Repollo did not personally witness the
execution of any of the documents he identified. In fact, Repollo testified that these
documents were merely turned over to him by his mother. Nor was Repollo knowledgeable
as to the genuineness of the signatures or handwritings found in the documents. Otherwise
stated, Repollo was totally incompetent to present and testify on these documents. Hence,
without proper identification and authentication, the documentary evidence of CAMACOP
should not have been admitted into evidence by the RTC.

Thus, without any copy of the purported Deed of Sale and any authentic document
containing a recital of the contents of the purported Deed of Sale, CAMACOP should have
provided a credible, convincing witness to prove the existence and contents of the
purported Deed of Sale. No such witness was provided by CAMACOP.
Q: Janet filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Use against CAMACOP,
alleging that the lot owned by her predecessors-in-interest, Pastora and Eustaquio
Cardenas, is illegally occupied by CAMACOP. Janet presented the TCT and Tax
Declaration covering said lot to prove ownership thereof. On the other hand,
CAMACOP argued that it is lawfully occupying said property since the same was sold
to it by Pastora, the registered owner of said property and Louise’s predecessor-in-
interest, who allegedly surrendered to CAMACOP the owner’s duplicate copy. Who
then between Janet and CAMACOP has the better right over the subject property?

A: JANET. The subject property is still registered in the names of Pastora T. Cardenas and
Eustaquio Cardenas." It is also an admitted fact that "the same lot is still declared for tax
purposes in the name of the plaintiffs Pastora Cardenas and Eustaquio Cardenas." While
Tax Declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership, at the very least they are proof that
the holder has a claim of title over the property and serve as sufficient basis for inferring
possession. Hence, the burden has then shifted to CAMACOP to prove that while the
certificate of title covering the subject property is still registered in the names of the Sps.
Cardenas, the ownership of the subject property had not remained with the Sps. Cardenas
and had been validly transferred to it through a contract of sale in 1962.

In asserting that the subject property was sold by Pastora to CAMACOP, the latter relies on
the existence of a Deed of Sale purportedly executed in 1962. CAMACOP however maintains
that, since all of the copies of this alleged Deed of Sale had been supposedly lost, it had to
resort to the presentation of secondary evidence to prove the existence of this Deed of Sale.

According to Section 5, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, when the original
document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon
proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on
his part, may prove its contents by presenting secondary evidence: (1) a copy of the lost
document, (2) by a recital of the contents of the lost document in some authentic document,
or (3) by a testimony of a witnesses, in the order stated. CAMACOP was not able to provide
any sufficient secondary evidence to establish the existence and contents of the supposed
1962 Deed of Sale covering the subject property.

The secondary evidence presented by CAMACOP are all inauthentic and inadmissible
documents. The records show that the secondary evidence presented by CAMACOP are all
mere photocopies. According to the Revised Rules on Evidence, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself. CAMACOP did not provide any sufficient
justification as to its failure to present the original copies of the documents.

Thus, without any copy of the purported Deed of Sale and any authentic document
containing a recital of the contents of the purported Deed of Sale, CAMACOP should have
provided a credible, convincing witness to prove the existence and contents of the
purported Deed of Sale. No such witness was provided by CAMACOP. (Heir of Cardenas v.
The Christian and Missionary Alliance Churches of the Philippines, Inc. G.R. No. 222614,
March 20, 2019, as penned by J.Caguioa)