G.R. No. 108558 – 411 Phil. 775 – Civil Law – Law on Property – Possession – Possession by Tolerance
In 1923, Maria Montes donated an unregistered parcel of land, 11,927 sq. m. in size, to Isabel Elaba.
In 1948, Elaba sold the said land to Esteban Abad. Esteban had since paid the taxes thereon religiously and a tax declaration was issued in his name. Meanwhile, Esteban allowed a certain Marcelo Tabuso to build a shanty (barong-barong) inside the said property.
In 1974, a new tax declaration was issued this time adding the name of Nemesio Abad, one of Esteban’s children.
In 1981, Nemesio decided to have a portion of the land be rented out for business. He then wrote a notice to vacate against the occupants of the shanty, namely, Andrea Tabuso and Renato Bismorte. Andrea was the daughter of Marcelo Tabuso.
But Tabuso et al refused to vacate the said property as they now claim that they were the owners of the said property; that they inherited the property from Montes; that they have paid the tax declarations thereon from 1944 to 1947.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tabuso can claim possession and/or ownership over the said property.
HELD: No. The evidence presented by Nemesio Abad outweighs that of Tabuso. Esteban Abad acquired possession over the property in 1948. Immediately, he paid the tax declaration for the year 1947 and has continued to do so for more than 60 years up to the time of the filing of this case. On the other hand, Tabuso’s claim that she was an heir of Maria Montes was not substantiated. Further, the tax declarations from 1944 to 1947 were only paid in 1981 when they received a notice to vacate from Nemesio.
If at all, their stay inside the property of the Abads was merely by tolerance. Esteban Abad merely allowed Andrea’s father to build a shanty thereon until 1981 when Nemesio, Esteban’s son, decided to use that portion of the property. Certainly, Tabuso’s possession over the property was not in the concept of an owner, they were merely tolerated. Such possession will never ripen into ownership. An owner’s act of allowing another to occupy his house, rent-free, does not create a permanent and indefeasible right of possession in the latter’s favor.
Further, Tabuso’s house thereon was merely a shanty built on a vast parcel of land. This fact lends support to Abad’s claim that the stay of the Tabuso’s in the said land was merely tolerated.
