Rosario v. Lim
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Brigida Aquino Lim acquired a leasehold right over a government-owned lot in Baguio City. Brigida and her son, respondent Alfonso Lim, allegedly entered into an agreement for the construction of a building on the property, financed by Alfonso. Later, they agreed on the construction of three more floors. Brigida executed two Affidavits of Waiver of Rights in favor of Alfonso. However, Brigida later executed another affidavit assailing the validity of the previous documents, stating she and her husband were the real owners and Alfonso did not finance the construction. Brigida died intestate. Alfonso and his sisters (petitioners) executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement for their parents' estates, excluding the disputed property. Subsequently, petitioners filed a Complaint for Judicial Partition of Real Estate, Accounting with Damages and Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled that the parties are co-owners of the disputed property and ordered its partition in five equal shares, with an order for accounting of rentals and payment of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine the facts and evidence essential for the application of Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code, specifically regarding the option of co-owners to appropriate improvements or the obligation to pay for the lot, and the value of expenses and increased value of the lot. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to annul and set aside the CA Resolution and Decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the disputed property should be included in Brigida's estate and be divided equally among her children. Whether Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code are applicable in determining the ownership of the building constructed on the leased lot.
Ruling
The Court reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, ordering the partition of the disputed properties among the parties. The Court held that the disputed properties should form part of Brigida's estate.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the disputed property should be included in Brigida's estate and be divided equally among her children: The Court affirmed the findings of the RTC that Brigida acquired the disputed property during her marriage and the title remained in her name. The CA gave credence to Brigida's Affidavit dated March 23, 1996, which declared that the construction of the building was financed by her and her husband, not by Alfonso, who was jobless at the time. This affidavit also stated that the subject property belonged to her and her late husband, and it was her desire that it be divided equally among all her children. The Court found no reason to deviate from the RTC's findings, which were given great weight and respect. The CA's reliance on Brigida's affidavit to uphold her ownership of the lot, while ignoring other portions regarding the financing of the building, was noted. The Court emphasized that tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership unlike a certificate of title. Therefore, the preponderance of evidence shifted in favor of the petitioners, and the contested properties should be part of Brigida's estate. On whether Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code are applicable: The Court ruled that Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code find no application in this case. These articles pertain to the rights of a builder in good faith on another's land. However, the principle that the accessory follows the principal applies. 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. Since Brigida was found to be the owner of the lot, the building constructed thereon, as an accessory, follows the principal. The RTC aptly held that the contested properties should necessarily form part of Brigida's estate, thus negating the applicability of the cited Civil Code provisions which would have been relevant if Alfonso were considered a builder in good faith on land he did not own.
Main Doctrine
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. Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code, concerning the rights of a builder in good faith, do not apply when the accessory follows the principal.