MAGDALENA T.

VILLASI, Petitioner,
vs.
FILOMENO GARCIA, substituted by his heirs, namely, ERMELINDA H. GARCIA, LIZA GARCIA-GONZALEZ,
THERESA GARCIA-TIANGSON, MARIVIC H. GARCIA, MARLENE GARCIA-MOMIN, GERARDO H. GARCIA,
GIDEON H. GARCIA and GENEROSO H. GARCIA, and ERMELINDA H. GARCIA, Respondents.

Facts:

Petitioner Magdalena Villasi, engaged the services of the respondent Fil-Garcia Construction, Inc. to construct 7-storey
condominium building located at Aurora Blvd. Cubao Quezon City.

For failure of Villasi to fully paid the contract price despite the FGCI’s several demands, it initiated a collection suit for
sum of money before the RTC of Quezon City . In her answer Villasi averred that she delivered the total amount owed
but FGCI was only able to construct a portion of the building. RTC ruled in favor of FGCI.

On appeal, CA reversed the RTC’s decision, stating that Villasi made an overpayment, thereby ordering FGCI to return
the amount paid in excess. Thereafter Villasi moved for the execution of CA decision. Thus, the sheriff levied a building
located in No, 40 Kalayaan Ave., and registered in the name of Sps Garcia only for tax purposes.

Public auction of theses properties was scheduled later on. On motion Garcia, the sale of execution was suspended.
Garcia asserts the assessor mistakenly assessed and sheriff mistakenly levied the building that lawfully belongs to them,
and cannot be levied upon not being owned by the judgement debtor. Meanwhile Villasi insist that the levy effected by
the Sheriff was proper since the subject property belongs to the FGCI as evidenced by the tax declaration

Issue:

WON the general rule in accession can be applied in the case at bar.

Ruling: NO.

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 this case, 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, yet he failed to present any evidence to substantiate his
claim of ownership or right to the possession of the building. In contrast, Villasi was able to satisfactorily establish the
ownership of FGCI thru the pieces of evidence she appended to her opposition, which is the building permit named
under FGCI issued by the City Engineering of Quezon City.

Therefore, when there are factual and evidentiary evidence to prove that the building and the lot on which it stands are
owned by different persons, they shall be treated separately. As such, the building, or the lot, as the case may be, can be
made liable to answer for the obligation of its respective owner.

Thus, petition was granted, and the Deputy Sheriff is hereby directed to proceed with the conduct of the sale on
execution of the levied building.