JULIA LIM ROSARIO, MERCEDES LIM CUSTODIO AS REPRESENTED BY DONNO

CUSTODIO, NORMA LICARDO, AND LEILA ESPIRITU, Petitioners, v. ALFONSO

LIM, Respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to annul and set aside the
Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution1 dated March 11, 2013 and its Decision2 dated
September 11, 2012 in CA-G.R. CV No. 95703 which reversed the Decision3 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 61, dated May 17, 2010 in Civil Case
No. 6599-R.

The pertinent facts of the case are as follows:

Sometime in 1973, Brigida Aquino Lim acquired a leasehold right over a government-
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

owned lot in Hilltop-Kayang, Baguio City, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 102-
74. Later, Brigida and his son, respondent Alfonso Lim, allegedly entered into an
agreement on March 10, 1973 for the construction of a building on said property, which
would be fully financed by the latter. Alfonso thus administered the construction of a
commercial building. Sometime in the late 1980s, Brigida and Alfonso once again
agreed on the construction of three (3) more floors on the already existing two (2)-
storey commercial building. On March 23, 1992, Brigida executed an Affidavit of Waiver
of Rights, categorically waiving, renouncing, and transferring all her rights and interests
over the leased lot in Alfonso's favor. On November 29, 1995, Brigida executed a Deed
of Waiver of Rights reiterating her waiver of rights over the leased lot and the erected
building in favor of her son.

However, on March 23, 1996, Brigida executed another affidavit assailing the validity of
the previously executed documents and stating that she and her husband, Luis, were
the real owners of the property and that Alfonso never caused and paid for the
construction of the subject building.

On February 8, 2001, Brigida died intestate. Subsequently, Alfonso and his sisters,
petitioners Julia Lim Rosario, Mercedes Lim Custodio, Norma Licardo, and Leila Espiritu
executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement for the estates of their parents without
including the disputed property. However, after six (6) years, or on November 20,
2007, petitioners filed a Complaint for Judicial Partition of Real Estate, Accounting with
Damages and Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

On May 17, 2010, the RTC ruled that the parties are co-owners of the disputed property
and ordered its partition among them in equal shares, thus:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment for the plaintiffs and against the defendants,
as follows: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

1. The properties subject of this case are hereby ordered to be partitioned in

five (5) equal shares and in case of disagreement in the partition, this
 Court shall appoint three (3) competent and disinterested individuals as
commissioners to make the partition;

2. The defendant is hereby ordered to make an accounting of all the rentals

of the subject properties from the date of judicial demand or filing of this
complaint and to deliver to the plaintiffs their corresponding shares as
well as their share in the subsequent rentals until the partition of the
properties is effected; and  cralawlawlibrary

3. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiffs the amount of

P50,000 as attorney's fees.

SO ORDERED.4 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Aggrieved, Alfonso elevated the case to the CA. On September 11, 2012, the CA
rendered a Decision granting the petition, the dispositive portion of which reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision

dated May 17, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 61, in Civil Case
No. 6599-R, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to
the court of origin for further proceedings to determine the facts and introduction of
evidence essential to the proper application of Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code,
specifically in accordance with the following matters and parameters: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

a. Co-owners' (plaintiffs-appellees including defendant appellant) option to

appropriate - as their own - the improvements on the lots, after paying the
indemnity, as provided under Article 546 in relation to Article 448 of the Civil
Code; or in requiring defendant-appellant Alfonso Lim to pay for the value of the
lot unless it is considerably more than that of the improvements in which case
defendant-appellant shall pay reasonable rent based upon the terms provided
under the Civil Code;

b. The value of the necessary and/or useful expenses incurred by defendant-

appellant in the construction of the improvements on the lot;

c. The increase in value acquired by the lot by reason of the construction of the
building/useful improvements;

d. Type of indemnity to be paid (whether b or c above); [and]

e. Whether the value of the lot is considerably more than that of the improvements
built thereon.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.5 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Hence, petitioners come before the Court for relief. The petition is meritorious.

The appellate court found that the main issue of the instant case is whether the
property in question should be included in Brigida's estate and be divided in equal
shares among her children.

Upon a close examination of the available records of the case at bar, the Court affirms
the findings of the courts below that, indeed, Brigida acquired the disputed property
during the subsistence of her marriage to Luis. It likewise appears that the title to said
property remains in Brigida's name. The CA gave credence to Brigida's Affidavit dated
March 23, 1996 which provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

xxxx

3. That sometime in the year 1973, when my husband Luis Lim was still alive, we
caused the construction of a two (2)-storey commercial building on the aforesaid lot
using from our joint income and also the proceeds of a mortgage loan we obtained from
the bank using as collateral for the purpose, my real property located at Rizal Street,
Poblacion, Mangaldan, Pangasinan;

4. That after about four (4) years of profitable operation of said building, I caused the
construction of additional 3rd and 4th storey building, plus a penthouse, using funds
derived from the earnings of the said building and also my bank deposits and other
savings;

5. That sometime in 1988, my eldest child and only son, Alfonso Lim revealed his
greedy intention to own for himself alone the said entire building at the exclusion of all
his aforenamed sisters. And towards this end, with use of threats and intimidation, my
said son Alfonso Lim, forced me to sign an affidavit dated May 27, 1988 stating therein,
among others, that it was my said son Alfonso Lim who financed the construction of the
first two (2) storeys and who entered into a building contract with a certain Romeo F.
Laigo. It is also stated therein that it was my said son who financed the construction of
the 3rd and fourth floors, plus the penthouse of the same building sometime in 1977. All
these matters are absolutely false because all the expenses therefor are my own money
as stated earlier and none carne from my said son Alfonso Lim because the latter was
jobless that time up to the present and gets his money from me. When the building was
already completed, my said son got all the rentals therefrom at the exclusion of his
sisters, although, there were rare occasions that my said son gave me minimal amount
from said rentals;

6. That I am executing this affidavit freely and voluntarily for the purpose of
establishing the truth that the construction of said commercial building in Baguio City
was financed with money that came from the sources mentioned above and certainly
not from the money of my said son Alfonso Lim; likewise, for the purpose of declaring
that [the] subject property belongs to me and my late husband and that if ever I die, it
is my sincerest desire that the same be divided equally by all my children, including the
rentals collected thereform;

7. That I am also executing this affidavit freely and voluntarily for the purpose of
declaring that my said affidavit dated May 27, 1988 is null and void and has no legal
effect whatsoever and for whatever legal purpose that this affidavit may serve.

x x x6 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The appellate court went further by saying that clearly, it was never Brigida's intention
to give the exclusive ownership of the contested lot to Alfonso, and the title to the same
was never transferred in anybody else's name.

The CA concluded that Alfonso was the owner of the building simply based on the
assailed agreement dated March 10, 1973 between Alfonso and Brigida, building
contract with a certain contractor, Romeo Laigo, tax declarations, and various
acknowledgment receipts and commercial invoices for construction materials. But while
the CA utilized said affidavit to uphold Brigida's ownership of the lot, it ignored the
other portions which categorically declared that the money used for, the development
of the building had actually come from Brigida and Luis and not from Alfonso, who was
jobless and had no sufficient source of income at that time to finance the construction
of a building. Said affidavit indubitably exposes the fact that Brigida never intended to
transfer the sole ownership of the contested property to her only son, but wanted it to
benefit all of her children, and that whatever document she may have had executed in
the past was fraudulently acquired and not obtained with her valid consent.

Further, Alfonso failed to present any proof that the money used for the erection of the
building in question actually came from him and that he indeed possessed sufficient
financial capacity to cause the construction of the structure. The trial court also found
that Brigida wrote a letter in Pangasinan dialect, dated October 18, 1987, to Alfonso.
The letter was translated to reveal that Brigida even admonished Alfonso not to meddle
with the status of the properties. Also, Laigo executed an affidavit stating that the
building actually belonged to the spouses Luis and Brigida Lim, and not to Alfonso.

The abovementioned findings of fact of the trial court must be accorded respect and
great weight. It is a hornbook doctrine that the trial court's factual findings, especially
when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be
disturbed except for strong and valid reasons since it is in a better position to examine
the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. Generally, it is no longer the Court's
function to analyze and weigh evidence by the parties all over again.7 The trial court's
findings of fact should not be disturbed on appeal, unless these are facts of weight and
substance that were overlooked or misinterpreted and that would materially affect the
disposition of the case.8 After a careful scrutiny of the records, the Court finds no
reason to deviate from the RTC's findings. Although the CA reversed the RTC's decision
when it held that Alfonso is the exclusive owner of the disputed building, it essentially
sustained the lower court's findings of fact as it even relied on Brigida's affidavit the
same evidence which the RTC used in deciding the controversy- to arrive at its
conclusion that Brigida indeed owned the subject lot. There is no indication that the
RTC of Baguio City had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the surrounding facts
and circumstances of the case. Hence, the Court must defer to the trial court on the
findings of facts as it was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of
the witnesses presented by both parties.9 chanrobleslaw

Neither can Alfonso lean on the supposed tax declarations in his name as these are not
conclusive evidence of ownership unlike a certificate of title which indicates true and
legal ownership by the registered owners.10 Thus, Articles 44811 and 54612 of the Civil
Code find no application in this case, but the doctrine that the accessory follows the
principal, that is, the ownership of the property gives the right by accession to
everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto,
either naturally or artificially.13 Verily, the RTC aptly held that preponderance of
evidence must shift in favor of petitioners and the contested properties should
necessarily form part of Brigida's estate.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the

Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated September 11, 2012, and its Resolution dated
March 11, 2013 in CA-G.R. CV No. 95703, and REINSTATES the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 61, dated May 17, 2010 in Civil Case No.
6599-R ordering the partition of the disputed properties among the parties.