FERNANDA MENDOZA CEQUENA and RUPERTA MENDOZA LIRIO, petitioners, vs.

HONORATA MENDOZA BOLANTE, respondent.

G.R. No. 137944. April 6, 2000.

FACTS:
The disputed land was originally declared for taxation purposes in the name of Sinforoso Mendoza,
father of Honorata (Respondent), and married to Eduarda Apiada prior 1954. Thereafter, the tax
declaration was subsequently cancelled and declared in the name of Sinforoso’s brother, Margarito
Mendoza, father of Fernanda and Ruperta (Petitioners) in 1953.
Sinforoso and Margarito now deceased, Honorata is the present occupant of the land. Long before
1979, during the cadastral survey the land was already in a dispute between Honorata and Miguel
Mendoza, brother of petitioners. Fernanda, et. al and Honorata are now in dispute as to whoever
is the rightful owner of the land.
The RTC decided in favor Fernanda, et. al. while the CA rendered judgment in favor of Honorata.
The CA ruled that the genuineness and the due execution of the affidavit allegedly signed by the
respondent and her mother had not been sufficiently established. Because the notary public and
witnesses in the execution were never presented in the trial. And the testimony of Honorata and
mother, that the latter is could neither write nor read is sufficient to overthrow the defect of the
said affidavit. Further, the CA ruled that actual, physical, exclusive, and continuous possession by
Honorata since 1985 gave her a better title under Article 538 of the Civil Code. However, the
Fernanda, et. al., contested that it was unnecessary to present the witnesses to establish the
authenticity of the affidavit because it was a declaration against respondent and it was an ancient
document.
ISSUE:
WON: Honorata has a better right over the disputed land?
RULING:
The SC ruled that possession by Fernanda, et.al, does not prevail over that of Honorata. Possession
by Fernanda, et. al., are not exclusive before 1985, as contrast to Honorata. Further, before 1985,
the land was already occupied and cultivated by Honorata’s father (Sinforoso), when Sinforoso
died in 1930, Margarito and Miguel took possession of the land and at the same time Honorata and
her mother continued residing on the lot. Honorata when came to age at 1948, she paid realty taxes
for the year 1932-1948.
Based on Articile 538 of the Civil Code, Honorata is the preferred possessor because, benefiting
from her father's tax declaration of the subject lot since 1926, she has been in possession thereof
for a longer period. On the other hand, petitioners' father acquired joint possession only in 1952.
Hence, Honorata has a better right over Fernanda, et. al.
Eddie E. Dizon and Bryan R. Dizon vs. Yolanda Vida P. Beltran
G,R No. 221072, January 18, 2017

Facts:
Eddie started working as seafarer in the 1980s. He and his wife have two children, Bryan and
James. The spouses resided on a 240 sq.m lot in Lanang, Davao City. On April 9, 2008, Spouses
entered into a compromise agreement whereby they contemplated selling the disputed property
not less than 4M. It arose from the case filed against Eddie and James for issuance of TPO.
While Eddie was out of the country for work, his wife, Verona, was confined at Adventist Hospital
in Bangkal, Davao City. Thereafter, she died on December 8, 2009. Eddie claimed that he was
unaware of Verona's hospital confinement. On December 9, 2009, his brother Jun Dizon (Jun),
called him through the Telephone and informed him about Verona's death. Eddie returned to the
Philippines on December 21, 2009. When he arrived, a copy of a Deed of Absolute Sale (Deed),
dated December, 1, 2009, was shown to Eddie. Its subject was the disputed property conveyed to
herein respondent, Yolanda Vida P. Beltran (Vida), for ₱1,500,000.00.
Eddie alleged that the Deed was falsified and his and Verona’s signature were forged. Thereafter,
Eddie filed two complaints against Vida, one is criminal for the falsification of public document and the
other civil for the nullification of the Deed.
On April 2010, the lot was cancelled in the name of Eddie and transferred to Vida. Vida filed a case
against Eddie for unlawful detainer., despite formal letter requiring Eddie to vacate the property, but
to no avail.

Eddie contested that at the time of the Deed, Verona was already unconscious and he is not in the
country, and returned only on December 21, 2009. Further, the signatures were all forge. Furthermore,
the price was not in accordance of the settlement agreement to sell the property for not less than 4M,
which Vida got for only 1.5M.

The MTCC ruled in favor of Vida, while the RTC ruled in favor of Eddie. Hence, this petition.