Digest: Ocampo v. Ocampo

Ocampo v. Ocampo
G.R. No. 150707. April 14, 2004

Facts:

The complaint alleges that during the lifetime of the spouses Jose Ocampo and Juana Llander-Ocampo, they begot ten (10) children. Two of them, Fidela, and Felicidad are respondents herein.

 

During the lifetime of the spouses Jose Ocampo and Luisa Llander-Ocampo, they acquired 3 parcels of land. Upon their death, they left the properties. Only one of them, Lot A is the subject of this case, a parcel of residential/ commercial land situated in the poblacion of Nabua, Camarines Sur. These lands are actually owned in common by the children of the late spouses although the land denominated as parcel A of the complaint, it is ostensibly registered in the name of Fidela Ocampo alone but acknowledged by her as a property owned in common by all of them, brothers and sisters. Plaintiffs’ desire to partition said properties but defendants Fidela Ocampo and Felicidad unlawfully and unreasonably refuse to do so; that the same defendants have been receiving the fruits of the properties to the exclusion of their co-heirs.

In their complaint, plaintiffs pray that judgment be rendered ordering the partition of the properties; ordering defendants Fidela and Felicidad to release or otherwise cancel any and all encumbrances which they had caused to be annotated on the TCT; to refrain from further encumbering said properties; and to indemnify plaintiffs.

The Supplemental Complaint alleges that defendants Helen Ocampo-Barrito and Vicente Barrito are spouses; that in 1987, the TCT in the name of defendant Fidela and covering the lot described as parcel A was cancelled and, in lieu thereof a TCT was issued to defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito, on the strength of an allege[d] Deed of Donation Inter Vivos ostensibly executed by defendant Fidela in their favor.

 

At the time the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos was presented for registration and when a TCT was issued to defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito, both the donor and donees were notoriously aware that said properties were owned by the Ocampo brothers and sisters, and that the donor Fidela was not the exclusive owner thereof.

The RTC holds and declares that defendant spouses are the true and lawful exclusive owners of the following properties. The CA affirmed with modifications (for damages) the said ruling.

Issue:

Whether or not RTC erred for holding and declaring defendant spouses as true and lawful exclusive owners of the disputed property?

Ruling:

Petitioners’ chief evidence of co-ownership of the property in question is simply the Acknowledgement of Co-ownership executed by Fidela. As mentioned earlier, both the trial and the appellate courts were correct in finding that this piece of documentary evidence could not prevail over the array of testimonial and documentary evidence that were adduced by respondents, such as:

First, Belen presented a Deed of Absolute Sale of Residential Land, referring to the subject property, executed between Adolfo Ocampo as seller and Felix Ocampo as buyer. The document dated in 1948, was acknowledged before a notary public. Likewise, in this Deed of Absolute Sale, Adolfo Ocampo declared his “exclusive ownership” of the property, “having been acquired by purchase[;] and [having] been in [his] continuous, public, peaceful, adverse and material possession for more than 50 years together with [his] predecessors in rights and interest, in [the] concept of owner without any claim of other persons.”

Second, Respondent Belen proved that on February 1953, this property had been sold to Fidela by Felix Ocampo for a valuable consideration; and that Fidela had entered the property, actually occupied it, and exercised all powers of dominion over it to the exclusion of petitioners.

To prove further that Fidela had exercised dominion over the property, Belen also presented a Real Estate Mortgage executed by the former as absolute owner. Fidela had executed it in favor of her sister Apolonia Ocampo, one of the original petitioners in this case, who is now represented by her heirs. Belen correctly argues that in agreeing to be a mortgagee, Apolonia admitted and recognized Fidela as the true owner of the land in question.

third, Belen then presented a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos executed in 1984, between herself as donee and Fidela as donor. This act shows the immediate source of the former’s claim of sole ownership of the property

Finally, Finally, Belen presented Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1365431 as proof of her ownership of the property. To be sure, the best proof of ownership of the land is the Certificate of Title (TCT). Hence, more than a bare allegation is required to defeat the face value of respondent’s TCT, which enjoys a legal presumption of regularity of issuance.

In addition to the TCT presented, Belen offered as evidence the Tax Declaration indicating that she, as owner, had been paying real estate taxes on the property, all to the exclusion of petitioners.

A donation as a mode of acquiring ownership results in an effective transfer of title to the property from the donor to the donee. Petitioners stubbornly rely on the Acknowledgement of Co-ownership allegedly executed by Fidela in favor of her siblings. What they overlook is the fact that at the time of the execution of the Acknowledgement — assuming that its authenticity and due execution were proven — the property had already been donated to Belen. The Deed of Donation, which is the prior document, is clearly inconsistent with the document (Acknowledgement of Co-ownership) relied upon by petitioners.

On the other hand, petitioners could not show any title, tax receipt or document to prove their ownership. Having filed an action involving property, they should have relied on the strength of their own title and not on the alleged weakness of respondents’ claim.

Neither can we accept petitioners’ contention that co-ownership is shown by the fact that some of the children of Spouses Ocampo stayed, lived, and even put up businesses on the property. The appellate court correctly found that since the litigants in this case were blood relatives, fraternal affection could have been a good motive that impelled either Belen or Fidela to allow petitioners to use the property. Without any proof, however, co-ownership among the parties cannot be presumed.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED, and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.