The claim of ownership by the plaintiffs with respect to the four parcels of land described in par. 4 of the complaint is preponderantly established by Tax Declaration Nos. 731, 732, 733 and 734, Exhibits, "A, A-1, A-2 and A-3" for the plaintiffs. These tax declarations covering the four parcels of land in question are tax declarations issued in 1948 and is (sic) in the name of Elpidio Borillo, husband of plaintiff Esperanza Borillo. Defendants never declared it (sic) in their name (sic) and no action or attempt whatsoever was made by the defendants to declare it (sic) in their name (sic) during the lifetime of Elpidio Borillo. It was only after the death of Elpidio Borillo and the institution of this action by the plaintiffs that defendants took action and strangely declared it (sic) in their names.

Obviously, the bulk of evidence for the plaintiffs are (sic) the tax declarations in the name of Elpidio Borillo which do not absolutely prove their ownership. But the circumstances obtaining in this case renders (sic) the tax declarations — Exhibits "A, A-1, A-2 and A-3", reliable and predominantly point that plaintiffs are owners of the four parcels of land described in par. 4 of the complaint as against the plaintiffs (sic). First, it will be noted that Exhibits A, A-1, A-2 and A-3 were prepared and issued long before the death of Elpidio Borillo. He was then a bachelor having married the plaintiff Esperanza Borillo in 1950. Defendant Catalina Borillo married long before the 2nd World War. Defendant Marcos Borillo likewise married before World War II. Defendants have properties declared in their names. Marcos Borillo accompanied the Assessors who measured the four parcels of land according to him (sic). Despite the status of the parties and the Assessors having been accompanied by defendant Marcos Borillo, still the four parcels of land were declared in the name of Elpidio Borillo. It is unconceivable (sic) why it was (sic) declared in the name of Elpidio Borillo, if it does (sic) not belong to him. True, that tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership, but it cannot be gainsaid especially in rural areas like Langiden, Abra where lands are not surveyed and titled, that tax declarations are strong evidence of possession and ownership.

Secondly, the four parcels of land described in par. 4 of the complaint were declared in the name of Elpidio Borillo for 29 years and no action whatsoever was taken by the defendants to have the tax declarations (Exhibits A, A-1, A-2 and A-3) be (sic) cancelled and declared the lands (sic) in their names during the lifetime of the declared owner Elpidio Borillo and immediately after his death. It was only in 1977 after the filing of the complaint and after the plaintiffs caused the cancellation of Exhibits A, A-1, A-2 and A-3 and declared the lands in their names when defendants attempted to declare it (sic) also in their names. The unfathomable tolerance of the defendants of having the four (4) parcels of land be (sic) declared in the name of their deceased brother, Elpidio Borillo in 1948 and remained (sic) in his name after his marriage with (sic) the plaintiff Esperanza Borillo in 1950 even (sic) after his death in 1971, is fatal and strongly negate their (sic) defendants' claim of ownership. No person like the defendants will ever allow his/her property be (sic) declared in the name of another for twenty-nine (29) years. The fact that the lands were declared in the name of Elpidio Borillo for twenty-nine (29) years coupled by (sic) his actual possession during his lifetime until his death in 1971 as testified to by Esperanza Borillo and Clemente Llaneza who is an uninterested witness strongly outweighed the evidence for the defendants and convincingly indicate that the four parcels of land described in par. 4 of the complaint really belong to Elpidio Borillo. The claim of defendants that they are (sic) in actual possession before World War II up to the present is persuasively belied by Exhibits A, A-1, A-2 and A-3 and the testimony of Clemente Llaneza.

The claim of defendant Catalina Borillo that she purchased parcels A, C and D described in par. 4 of the complaint from her deceased brother Elpidio Borillo before World War II as evidence (sic) by Exhibits "3" and "4" appears unreliable and incredible. Exhibit "3" which is an acknowledgment receipt dated May 12, 1946 made no mention of what property has been sold. There is no evidence of any transfer of ownership. In fact, there is nothing clear from the evidence as to what land of Elpidio Borillo is referred to in Exhibit "3". From the terms of Exhibit "3" and the alleged consideration thereof, it thus becomes obvious that it is only a receipt evidencing a loan of P40.00.

Exhibit "4" (receipt) which is the main basis of the claim of ownership by defendant Catalina Borillo with respect to parcels A, C and D in par. 4 of the complaint, appears unreliable and cannot prevail against the evidence for the plaintiffs. This Exhibit "4" for defendant Catalina Borillo is undated and unsigned. Defendant Catalina Borillo testified that she does not know the contends of Exhibit "4". Elpidio Borillo as shown by Exhibit "3" for defendant Catalina Borillo and Exhibits E and F for the plaintiffs knows how to write his name. Yet, Exhibit "4" was not signed by him. Aside from the patent defects of Exhibit "4" on its face which renders it unreliable, it will be noted that during the pre-trial proceedings, defendant Catalina Borillo presented Exhibit "4" to support her claim as alleged in her answer of having purchased parcels A, C and D from Elpidio Borillo in 1935. Clearly embodied, however, in Exhibit "4" are tax declarations Nos. 0732, 0731 and 0734 which are indeed tax declarations in 1948 in the name of Elpidio Borillo. Considering that Exhibit "4" is a document executed in 1935 according to the defendant Catalina Borillo, why are Tax Declarations Nos. 731, 732 and 734 which were issued only in 1948 incorporated? The inclusion of non-existent document (sic) in Exhibit "4" at the time of its alleged execution absolutely renders Exhibit "4" wholly unworthy and undeserving of any credence. 9

I

THAT THE FACTS RELIED UPON IS (sic) NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.

II

THAT THE DECISION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby set aside and another judgment is hereby rendered declaring defendant Catalina Borillo as the owner of parcels (a), (c) and (d) and of the one-fifth portion of Elpidio Borillo in parcels (e) and (f); that defendant Marcos Borillo is the owner of parcel (b); with costs against the plaintiffs.

SO ORDERED.

We are convinced that the preponderance of the evidence tilt (sic) heavily in favor of defendant. Defendant established she has been in possession in the concept of owner of said three parcels of land (a), (c) and (d) since her purchase of the same long before the war and she cultivated the same in the concept of owner, paying the real estate taxes and thereafter declaring it in her name while Marcos Borillo acquired parcel (b) from Elpidio since 1938 of which he took possession in the concept of owner, and declared the same in his name paying the real estate taxes. No less than Melecio Borillo, son of plaintiff Esperanza, not only withdrew as party plaintiff with his sister Patricia but he even testified that he knew from the very mouth of his father Elpidio while he was still alive that he sold the property in question to defendant Catalina Borillo. It has also been shown that Elpidio Borillo sold his 1/5 portion of parcels (e) and (f) also before the war to defendant and she had been in continuous possession since then in the concept of owner.

Under Article 1137 of the Civil Code, such uninterrupted, adverse, open possession for thirty (30) years by defendants regardless of their title or good faith upholds said defendants' right over the property. (Parcotillo vs. Parcotillo, 12 SCRA 435, 440).

In finding for the plaintiffs the trial court relied on the tax declarations in the name of Elpidio as proof that plaintiffs are the owners of the questioned property since the property is untitled; that for 29 years no action was taken by defendants to declare the property in their name (sic) and it was only in 1977 after the filing of the complaint that defendants so declared the properties in their name (sic); that Exhibit 4 is unreliable being unsigned by Elpidio when there is evidence that he could sign his name; that Exhibit 3 did not mention the property sold; that Exhibit 4 was made in 1935 as alleged in the answer but surprisingly it embodied Tax Declarations 731, 732 and 734 which were issued only in 1948; and that the alleged sale of the right of Elpidio over parcels (e) and (f) are without receipts.

We disagree. Declaration of ownership for taxation purposes, or assessment declaration and tax receipts do not constitute evidence of ownership. They are only prima facie evidence of possession. (Evangelista vs. Tabayuyong, 7 Phil. 607; Casimiro vs. Fernandez, 9 Phil. 562) However, if the holder of a (sic) land presents a deed of conveyance in his favor from the former owner thereof to support his claim of ownership, the declaration of ownership and tax receipts relative to the property may be used to prove good faith on his part in occupying and possessing the same. (Elumbaring vs. Elumbaring, 12 Phi. 384) And while it is true that tax receipts do not prove titled (sic) to a land, nevertheless when considered with the actual possession of the property by the applicant, they constitute evidence of great weight in support of the claim of title of ownership by prescription. (Viernes vs. Agpaoa, 41 Phil. 286; Land Registration and Mortgages by Ventura, pp. 125-126)

Plaintiffs admitted that defendants are in possession of the lands in question and the records show that even during the lifetime of Elpidio, the defendant had been paying the real property taxes of the property (Exhs. 1 to 1-I). The sale of parcels (a), (c) and (d) to defendant is evidenced by Exhibits 3 and 4. Although Exhibit 3 does not indicate the property subject of the sale, such deficiency can be attributed to the fact that this was a document executed between brother and sister without the assistance of a lawyer but testimonial evidence has been adduced that cured this defect. True it is that Exhibit 4 appears not to have been signed by Elpidio and he merely imprinted a cross over his name when it appears that he knew how to sign. However, defendants Catalina and Marcos Borillo categorically testified that Elpidio signed his name only by copying a sample. Hence, it is understandable if Elpidio did not sign Exhibit 4 for he must not have been furnished a (sic) guide to be copied. No evidence was adduced that Exhibit 4 was actually executed in 1935. What was established is that Elpidio sold said three parcels to defendant Catalina before the war. In confirmation of said sale, Exhibit 4 must have been executed on or before 1948 that is why it reflects the Tax Declarations of said property to be effective in the same year.

On the other hand, outside of the fact that the property remained to be declared in the name of Elpidio plaintiffs have not adduced any other evidence to buttress their claim of ownership. Plaintiff Esperanza paid for the real property taxes of the property only on June 22, 1977 after the complaint was filed in court. (Exhibit C) It is not improbable that the reason why the properties remained in the name of Elpidio inspite of the fact that it has long been sold to defendants is because this is a sale between brother and sister where mutual trust and confidence is to be expected. Indeed, during the lifetime of Elpidio he never questioned the acts of ownership exercised by the defendants over the property and even after his death in 1970, plaintiff Esperanza only remembered to assert their alleged right in 1976 when she attempted to talk to defendant who told her it was already sold to them and yet it was only in 1977 that the complaint was filed.