Facts:

The lessor, Ana Quinn, entered into a contract of a building with Mr. Job Hutt, for a
term of five years. Ana Quinn filed a complaint for ejectment against Mr. Hutt after five years
when Mr. Hutt refused to vacate the said building. The Supreme Court upheld the lower
court’s decision, and has now become final. Mr. Hutt contented that Ana Quinn’s first cousin,
Lucas Quinn, was the real owner of the building with the copy of the tax declaration as Hutt’s
evidence against Ana Quinn. Therefore, Mr. Hutt argued that Ana Quinn lied under oath in
her affidavit submitted to the ejectment case when she stated that she was the owner of the
leased building so Mr. Hutt filed a criminal case for perjury against Ana Quinn.

Issues:
1. Is tax declaration sufficient to prove Lucas Quinn’s ownership of the leased building?
2. Will the criminal case for perjury prosper?
● Were the elements of perjury present?

Identify the rules that governed:

Governing Rules

Cause of Action
In the case of Soloil Inc. vs. Philippine Coconut Authority (G.R. No. 174806), the elements of
cause of action are the following:
a.​ ​A right in favor of the plaintiff in whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is
created
b.​ ​An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not violate such right
c.​ ​An act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter
may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.
Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defined cause of action as:
Rule 2. Cause of action, is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another.

Earliest Opportunity
As held in the case of Ofelia Arceta vs. Hon. Celestina Mangrobang ​ (​G.R. No. 152895, June
15, 2004):
“Seeking judicial review at the earliest opportunity does not mean immediately elevating the
matter to this Court. Earliest opportunity means that the question of unconstitutionality of the
act in question should have been immediately raised in the proceedings in the court below.”

Perjury
Under Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code, perjury can be committed in two ways:
a.​ ​By Falsely testifying under oath
b.​ ​By making a false affidavit
The elements of Perjury are the following:
a.​ ​That accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material
matter
b.​ That
​ the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer
c.​ That accused made a wilful and deliberate assertion of falsehood in the statement
​

d.​ That the sworn statement or affidavit containing falsity is required by law.
​

Evidence of Ownership
As held in the case of San Miguel vs. Ca (​G.R. No. 57667 May 28, 1990) with regards to
conclusive evidence of Possession:
“Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of right of possession over a
piece of land. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership. Tax declarations only become
strong evidence of ownership of land acquired by prescription- a mode of ownership of
acquisition of ownership and accompanied by proof of actual possession.”

In another case, Cequeṅa and Lirio vs. Bolante (GR 137944, April 6, 2000)
“Tax receipts and declarations are prima facie proofs of ownership or possession of the
property for which such taxes have been paid. Coupled with proof of actual possession of
the property, they may become the basis of a claim for ownership. By acquisitive
prescription, possession in the concept of owner — public, adverse, peaceful and
uninterrupted — may be converted to ownership. On the other hand, mere possession and
occupation of land cannot ripen into ownership.”

Furthermore, in the case of Palali vs. Awisan (GR 158385, Feb. 12, 2010)
“Thus, respondent having failed to prove possession, her claim rests solely on her tax
declaration. But tax declarations, by themselves, are not conclusive evidence of ownership
of real property. In the absence of actual, public, and adverse possession, the declaration of
the land for tax purposes does not prove ownership.”
“We have ruled in several cases that possession, when coupled with a tax declaration, is a
weighty evidence of ownership. It certainly is more weighty and preponderant than a tax
declaration alone.”

Analyze how and why the rules apply:

The pivotal issue to resolve in this case is the existence of sufficient cause to indict
respondent for perjury. Ana Quinn is charged with the crime of perjury under Article 183 of
the Revised Penal Code for making a false affidavit when she stated that she was the owner
of the leased building to the earlier ejectment case (unlawful detainer). The elements of
perjury under Article 183 are the following:
a) that the accused made a statement under oath or executed and affidavit upon
a material matter;
 b) that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer,
authorized to receive and administer oath;
c) that in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate
assertion of falsehood; and
d) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or
made for a legal purpose.

It must be emphasized that perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of falsehood
under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter, and the
statement or affidavit in question here is respondent’s statement that she was the owner of
the leased building in the earlier ejectment case. Thus, it then becomes necessary to
consider the elements and the material matter involved in an ejectment (unlawful detainer)
case. This is to determine whether or not respondent has committed perjury.
As provided in section 1, rule 70 of the Rules of Court, a case for unlawful detainer
refers to an action for recovery of possession from the defendant whose possession of the
property was inceptively lawful by virtue of a contract (express or implied) with the plaintiff,
but become illegal when he continued his possession despite the termination of his right
thereunder.
Moreover, in the case of Yuki vs. Co, G.R. No. 178527 which cited the case of
Manuel vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95469, the Supreme Court pronounced that in
unlawful detainer cases, the elements to be proved and resolved are the facts of lease and
expiration or violation of its terms. Additionally, according to Article 1673 (1) of the Civil
Code, one of the causes for a lessor to judicially eject the lessee is when the duration of
lease has expired. In the case at bar, despite the expiration of the contract of lease, the
petitioner still refused to vacate the premises.
In prosecutions for perjury, a matter is material if it is the main fact which was the
subject of the inquiry, or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact xxx (U.S. vs.
Estraña, 16 Phil. 520, 1910). To hold respondent liable, there must be evidence that the
assailed affidavit was the subject of the inquiry in that case. Petitioner has presented no
such evidence. The question on ownership of the leased premises is not even an element in
action for unlawful detainer nor a ground on ejectment case as provided under Article 1673
(1) of the Civil Code. The respondent’s statement that she was the owner of the leased
building in the earlier ejectment case cannot be considered as a material matter to the
perjury case. Thus, the charge against Anna Quinn must be dismissed.
Furthermore, even assuming that the defendant’s evidence on the questioned
ownership be considered, the case will not still prosper. As enunciated in the case of Palali
vs. Awisan, G.R. No 158385 (February 12, 2010), the Supreme Court ruled that tax
declarations by themselves are not conclusive evidence of ownership of real property. In the
absence of actual, public and adverse possession, the declaration of the land for tax
purposes does not prove ownership. Thus, the evidence presented by the petitioner is not a
sufficient proof to question the ownership of the building.