Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search Store documents

The best documents sold by students who completed their studies

Search through all study resources
Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

University Rankings

Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

From our blog

Exams and Study
Go to the blog

Case Digest: Villasi vs. Spouses Garcia, Study notes of Civil Law

University of Manila (UM)Civil Law

The document is a case digest or case brief of the case MAGDALENA T. VILLASI v. SPOUSES FILOMENO GARCIA AND ERMELINDA HALILI-GARCIA; G.R. No. 190106; January 15, 2014; PEREZ, J.

Typology: Study notes

2017/2018

Available from 03/31/2022

ElonieAdigue
ElonieAdigue 🇵🇭

4 documents

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
DOCTRINE: In cases where there is a clear and convincing evidence to prove that the
principal and the accessory are not owned by one and the same person or entity, the
presumption (accessory follows the principal) shall not be applied and the actual
ownership shall be upheld.
MAGDALENA T. VILLASI v. SPOUSES FILOMENO GARCIA AND ERMELINDA
HALILI-GARCIA
G.R. No. 190106 January 15, 2014 PEREZ, J.
FACTS:
Sometime in 1990, petitioner Magdalena T. Villasi engaged the services of respondent
Fil-Garcia Construction, Inc. to construct a seven-storey condominium building located at
Cubao, Quezon City. For failure of Villasi to fully pay the contract price despite several
demands, FGCI initiated a suit for collection of sum of money before the RTC of Quezon
City. Served with summons, Villasi filed an answer specifically denying the material
allegations of the complaint. Contending that FGCI has no cause of action against her,
Villasi averred that she delivered the total amount of P7,490,325.10 to FGCI but the latter
accomplished only 28% of the project.
Finding that FGCI was able to preponderantly establish by evidence its right to the unpaid
accomplishment billings, the RTC ruled in FGCI’s favor. While the trial court brushed
aside the allegation of Villasi that an excess payment was made, it upheld the claim of
FGCI to the unpaid amount of the contract price.
Elevated on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the disquisition of the RTC. The
appellate court ruled that an overpayment was made by Villasi and thereby directed FGCI
to return the amount that was paid in excess.
Unrelenting, FGCI filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court. This Court,
however denied the appeal for being filed out of time.
To enforce her right as prevailing party, Villasi filed a Motion for Execution which was
favorably acted upon by the RTC. To satisfy the judgment, the sheriff levied on a building
located at No. 140 Kalayaan Avenue, Quezon City which was declared for taxation
purposes in the name of FGCI, the lots in which it was erected were registered in the
names of the Spouses Filomeno Garcia and Ermelinda Halili-Garcia.
The Spouses Garcia filed an Affidavit of Third Party Claim and a Motion to Set Aside
Notice of Sale on Execution, claiming that they are the lawful owners of the property which
was erroneously levied upon by the sheriff.
After weighing the arguments of the opposing parties, the RTC issued an Order directing
the Sheriff to hold in abeyance the conduct of the sale on execution.
Arguing that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in ordering the suspension of the sale
on execution, Villasi timely filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The
appellate court dismissed the petition.
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download Case Digest: Villasi vs. Spouses Garcia and more Study notes Civil Law in PDF only on Docsity!

DOCTRINE: In cases where there is a clear and convincing evidence to prove that the principal and the accessory are not owned by one and the same person or entity, the presumption (accessory follows the principal) shall not be applied and the actual ownership shall be upheld. MAGDALENA T. VILLASI v. SPOUSES FILOMENO GARCIA AND ERMELINDA HALILI-GARCIA G.R. No. 190106 January 15, 2014 PEREZ, J. FACTS: Sometime in 1990, petitioner Magdalena T. Villasi engaged the services of respondent Fil-Garcia Construction, Inc. to construct a seven-storey condominium building located at Cubao, Quezon City. For failure of Villasi to fully pay the contract price despite several demands, FGCI initiated a suit for collection of sum of money before the RTC of Quezon City. Served with summons, Villasi filed an answer specifically denying the material allegations of the complaint. Contending that FGCI has no cause of action against her, Villasi averred that she delivered the total amount of P7,490,325.10 to FGCI but the latter accomplished only 28% of the project. Finding that FGCI was able to preponderantly establish by evidence its right to the unpaid accomplishment billings, the RTC ruled in FGCI’s favor. While the trial court brushed aside the allegation of Villasi that an excess payment was made, it upheld the claim of FGCI to the unpaid amount of the contract price. Elevated on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the disquisition of the RTC. The appellate court ruled that an overpayment was made by Villasi and thereby directed FGCI to return the amount that was paid in excess. Unrelenting, FGCI filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court. This Court, however denied the appeal for being filed out of time. To enforce her right as prevailing party, Villasi filed a Motion for Execution which was favorably acted upon by the RTC. To satisfy the judgment, the sheriff levied on a building located at No. 140 Kalayaan Avenue, Quezon City which was declared for taxation purposes in the name of FGCI, the lots in which it was erected were registered in the names of the Spouses Filomeno Garcia and Ermelinda Halili-Garcia. The Spouses Garcia filed an Affidavit of Third Party Claim and a Motion to Set Aside Notice of Sale on Execution, claiming that they are the lawful owners of the property which was erroneously levied upon by the sheriff. After weighing the arguments of the opposing parties, the RTC issued an Order directing the Sheriff to hold in abeyance the conduct of the sale on execution. Arguing that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in ordering the suspension of the sale on execution, Villasi timely filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the decision of the trial court to suspend and hold in abeyance the sale on execution of the buildings levied upon on the basis of respondents’ affidavit of third-party claim. HELD: Yes. Indeed, the power of the court in executing judgments extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor alone. An execution can be issued only against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. The duty of the sheriff is to levy the property of the judgment debtor not that of a third person. For, as the saying goes, one man's goods shall not be sold for another man's debts. The right of a third-party claimant to file a terceria is founded on his title or right of possession. Corollary thereto, before the court can exercise its supervisory power to direct the release of the property mistakenly levied and the restoration thereof to its rightful owner, the claimant must first unmistakably establish his ownership or right of possession thereon. The Spouses Garcia, however, failed to prove that they have a bona fide title to the building in question. Aside from their postulation that as title holders of the land, the law presumes them to be owners of the improvements built thereon, the Spouses Garcia were unable to adduce credible evidence to prove their ownership of the property. In contrast, Villasi was able to satisfactorily establish the ownership of FGCI thru the pieces of evidence she appended to her opposition. Worthy to note is the fact that the building in litigation was declared for taxation purposes in the name of FGCI and not in the Spouses Garcias’. While it is true that tax receipts and tax declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute credible proof of claim of title over the property. It likewise failed to escape our attention that FGCI is in actual possession of the building and as the payment of taxes coupled with actual possession of the land covered by tax declaration strongly supports a claim of ownership. While it is a hornbook 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, such rule is not without exception. In cases where there is a clear and convincing evidence to prove that the principal and the accessory are not owned by one and the same person or entity, the presumption shall not be applied and the actual ownership shall be upheld. In a number of cases, we recognized the separate ownership of the land from the building and brushed aside the rule that accessory follows the principal. To set the record straight, while petitioner may have proven his ownership of the land, as there can be no other piece of evidence more worthy of credence than a Torrens certificate of title, he failed to present any evidence to substantiate his claim of ownership or right to the possession of the building.