Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

THIRDDIVISION

HEIRSOFJOSELIM,
G.R.No.172690
representedbyELENITOLIM,

Petitioners,
Present:

CORONA,J.,

Chairperson,

VELASCO,JR.,

NACHURA,
versus

DELCASTILLO,*and

MENDOZA,JJ.

Promulgated:
JULIETVILLALIM,

Respondent.
March3,2010

xx

DECISION

NACHURA,J.:

[1]
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil

[2]
Procedure,assailingtheCourtofAppeals(CA)Decision datedJune29,2005,whichreversed
[3]
andsetasidethedecision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, dated April 12,
2004.
Thefactsofthecaseareasfollows:

Petitioners are the heirs of the late Jose Lim (Jose), namely: Jose's widow Cresencia Palad
(Cresencia) and their children Elenito, Evelia, Imelda, Edelyna and Edison, all surnamed Lim

[4]
(petitioners), represented by Elenito Lim (Elenito). They filed a Complaint for Partition,
Accounting and Damages against respondent Juliet Villa Lim (respondent), widow of the late
ElfledoLim(Elfledo),whowastheeldestsonofJoseandCresencia.

Petitioners alleged that Jose was the liaison officer of Interwood Sawmill in Cagsiay, Mauban,
Quezon.Sometimein1980,Jose,togetherwithhisfriendsJimmyYu(Jimmy)andNorbertoUy
(Norberto),formedapartnershiptoengageinthetruckingbusiness.Initially,withacontribution
ofP50,000.00each,theypurchasedatrucktobeusedinthehaulingandtransportoflumberofthe
sawmill.JosemanagedtheoperationsofthistruckingbusinessuntilhisdeathonAugust15,1981.
Thereafter,Jose'sheirs,includingElfledo,andpartnersagreedtocontinuethebusinessunderthe
managementofElfledo.Thesharesinthepartnershipprofitsandincomethatformedpartofthe
estateofJosewereheldintrustbyElfledo,withpetitioners'authorityforElfledotouse,purchase
oracquirepropertiesusingsaidfunds.

Petitioners also alleged that, at that time, Elfledo was a fresh commerce graduate serving as his
fathersdriverinthetruckingbusiness.Hewasneverapartneroraninvestorinthebusinessand
merelysupervisedthepurchaseofadditionaltrucksusingtheincomefromthetruckingbusiness
ofthepartners.Bythetimethepartnershipceased,ithadninetrucks,whichwereallregisteredin
Elfledo's name. Petitioners asseverated that it was also through Elfledos management of the
partnership that he was able to purchase numerous real properties by using the profits derived
therefrom,allofwhichwereregisteredinhisnameandthatofrespondent.Inadditiontothenine
trucks,Elfledoalsoacquiredfiveothermotorvehicles.

OnMay18,1995,Elfledodied,leavingrespondentashissolesurvivingheir.Petitionersclaimed
thatrespondenttookovertheadministrationoftheaforementionedproperties,whichbelongedto
the estate of Jose, without their consent and approval. Claiming that they are coowners of the
properties, petitioners required respondent to submit an accounting of all income, profits and
rentalsreceivedfromtheestateofElfledo,andtosurrendertheadministrationthereof.Respondent
refusedthus,thefilingofthiscase.

Respondent traversed petitioners' allegations and claimed that Elfledo was himself a partner of
NorbertoandJimmy.RespondentalsoclaimedthatpertestimonyofCresencia,sometimein1980,
Jose gave Elfledo P50,000.00 as the latter's capital in an informal partnership with Jimmy and
Norberto.WhenElfledoandrespondentgotmarriedin1981,thepartnershiponlyhadonetruck
but through the efforts of Elfledo, the business flourished. Other than this trucking business,

Elfledo,togetherwithrespondent,engagedinotherbusinessventures.Thus,theywereabletobuy
real properties and to put up their own car assembly and repair business. When Norberto was
ambushedandkilledonJuly16,1993,thetruckingbusinessstartedtofalter.WhenElfledodied
onMay18,1995duetoaheartattack,respondenttalkedtoJimmyandtotheheirsofNorberto,as
shecouldnolongerrunthebusiness.Jimmysuggestedthatthreeoutoftheninetrucksbegivento
him as his share, while the other three trucks be given to the heirs of Norberto. However,
Norberto's wife, Paquita Uy, was not interested in the vehicles. Thus, she sold the same to
respondent,whopaidforthemininstallments.
RespondentalsoallegedthatwhenJosediedin1981,heleftnoknownassets,andthepartnership
with Jimmy and Norberto ceased upon his demise. Respondent also stressed that Jose left no
properties that Elfledo could have held in trust. Respondent maintained that all the properties
involvedinthiscasewerepurchasedandacquiredthroughherandherhusbandsjointeffortsand
hard work, and without any participation or contribution from petitioners or from Jose.
Respondentsubmittedthattheseareconjugalpartnershippropertiesandthus,shehadtherightto
refusetorenderanaccountingfortheincomeorprofitsoftheirownbusiness.

Trial on the merits ensued. On April 12, 2004, the RTC rendered its decision in favor of
petitioners,thus:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrendered:

1)Orderingthepartitionoftheabovementionedpropertiesequallybetweentheplaintiffsandheirs
ofJoseLimandthedefendantJulietVillaLimand

2)Orderingthedefendanttosubmitanaccountingofallincomes,profitsandrentalsreceivedby
herfromsaidproperties.

SOORDERED.

Aggrieved,respondentappealedtotheCA.

On June 29, 2005, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC's decision, dismissing petitioners'
[5]
complaint for lack of merit. Undaunted, petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration,
[6]
whichtheCA,however,deniedinitsResolution datedMay8,2006.

Hence,thisPetition,raisingthesolequestion,viz.:


IN THE APPRECIATION BY THE COURT OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE
PARTIES, CAN THE TESTIMONY OF ONE OF THE PETITIONERS BE GIVEN GREATER
WEIGHT THAN THAT BY A FORMER PARTNER ON THE ISSUE OF THE IDENTITY OF
[7]
THEOTHERPARTNERSINTHEPARTNERSHIP?

Inessence,petitionersarguethataccordingtothetestimonyofJimmy,thesolesurvivingpartner,
ElfledowasnotapartnerandthatheandNorbertoenteredintoapartnershipwithJose.Thus,the
CAerredinnotgivingthattestimonygreaterweightthanthatofCresencia,whowasmerelythe
[8]
spouseofJoseandnotapartytothepartnership.

Respondentcountersthattheissueraisedbypetitionersisnotproperinapetitionforreviewon
certiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCivilProcedure,asitwouldentailthereview,evaluation,
calibration,andreweighingofthefactualfindingsoftheCA.Moreover,respondentinvokesthe
rationale of the CA decision that, in light of the admissions of Cresencia and Edison and the
testimony of respondent, the testimony of Jimmy was effectively refuted accordingly, the CA's
[9]
reversaloftheRTC'sfindingswasfullyjustified.
WeresolvefirsttheproceduralmatterregardingtheproprietyoftheinstantPetition.
Verily,theevaluationandcalibrationoftheevidencenecessarilyinvolvesconsiderationoffactual
issuesanexercisethatisnotappropriateforapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45.This
ruleprovidesthatthepartiesmayraiseonlyquestionsoflaw,becausetheSupremeCourtisnota
trier of facts. Generally, we are not dutybound to analyze again and weigh the evidence
[10]
introducedinandconsideredbythetribunalsbelow.
Whensupportedbysubstantialevidence,
thefindingsoffactoftheCAareconclusiveandbindingonthepartiesandarenotreviewableby
thisCourt,unlessthecasefallsunderanyofthefollowingrecognizedexceptions:

(1)Whentheconclusionisafindinggroundedentirelyonspeculation,surmisesandconjectures

(2)Whentheinferencemadeismanifestlymistaken,absurdorimpossible

(3)Wherethereisagraveabuseofdiscretion

(4)Whenthejudgmentisbasedonamisapprehensionoffacts

(5)Whenthefindingsoffactareconflicting

(6)WhentheCourtofAppeals,inmakingitsfindings,wentbeyondtheissuesofthecaseandthe
sameiscontrarytotheadmissionsofbothappellantandappellee

(7)Whenthefindingsarecontrarytothoseofthetrialcourt

(8)Whenthefindingsoffactareconclusionswithoutcitationofspecificevidenceonwhichthey
arebased

(9)Whenthefactssetforthinthepetitionaswellasinthepetitioners'mainandreplybriefsarenot
disputedbytherespondentsand

(10)WhenthefindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsarepremisedonthesupposedabsenceof
evidenceandcontradictedbytheevidenceonrecord.

[11]

Wenote,however,thatthefindingsoffactoftheRTCarecontrarytothoseoftheCA.Thus,our
reviewofsuchfindingsiswarranted.
Onthemeritsofthecase,wefindthattheinstantPetitionisbereftofmerit.

Apartnershipexistswhentwoormorepersonsagreetoplacetheirmoney,effects,labor,andskill
inlawfulcommerceorbusiness,withtheunderstandingthatthereshallbeaproportionatesharing
oftheprofitsandlossesamongthem.AcontractofpartnershipisdefinedbytheCivilCodeasone
where two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a
[12]
commonfund,withtheintentionofdividingtheprofitsamongthemselves.

Undoubtedly, the best evidence would have been the contract of partnership or the articles of
partnership. Unfortunately, there is none in this case, because the alleged partnership was never
formally organized. Nonetheless, we are asked to determine who between Jose and Elfledo was
thepartnerinthetruckingbusiness.

AcarefulreviewoftherecordspersuadesustoaffirmtheCAdecision.Theevidencepresentedby
petitionersfallsshortofthequantumofproofrequiredtoestablishthat:(1)Josewasthepartner
and not Elfledo and (2) all the properties acquired by Elfledo and respondent form part of the
estateofJose,havingbeenderivedfromtheallegedpartnership.
Petitioners heavily rely on Jimmy's testimony. But that testimony is just one piece of evidence
againstrespondent.Itmustbeconsideredandweighedalongwithpetitioners'otherevidencevis
vis respondent's contrary evidence. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must
establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. "Preponderance of evidence" is the weight,
credit,andvalueoftheaggregateevidenceoneithersideandisusuallyconsideredsynonymous
with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence."

"Preponderanceofevidence"isaphrasethat,inthelastanalysis,meansprobabilityofthetruth.It
isevidencethatismoreconvincingtothecourtasworthyofbeliefthanthatwhichisofferedin
[13]
opposition thereto.
Rule 133, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides the guidelines in
determiningpreponderanceofevidence,thus:

SECTIONI.Preponderanceofevidence,howdetermined.Incivilcases,thepartyhavingburdenof
proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the
preponderanceorsuperiorweightofevidenceontheissuesinvolvedlies,thecourtmayconsiderall
thefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,thewitnesses'manneroftestifying,theirintelligence,their
meansandopportunityofknowingthefactstowhichtheyaretestifying,thenatureofthefactsto
which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of
interest,andalsotheirpersonalcredibilitysofarasthesamemaylegitimatelyappearuponthetrial.
Thecourtmayalsoconsiderthenumberofwitnesses,thoughthepreponderanceisnotnecessarily
withthegreaternumber.

At this juncture, our ruling in Heirs of Tan Eng Kee v. Court of Appeals

[14]
is enlightening.

Therein,wecitedArticle1769oftheCivilCode,whichprovides:

Art.1769.Indeterminingwhetherapartnershipexists,theserulesshallapply:

(1) Except as provided by Article 1825, persons who are not partners as to each other are not
partnersastothirdpersons

(2) Coownership or copossession does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co
ownersorcopossessorsdoordonotshareanyprofitsmadebytheuseoftheproperty

(3)Thesharingofgrossreturnsdoesnotofitselfestablishapartnership,whetherornotthepersons
sharingthemhaveajointorcommonrightorinterestinanypropertyfromwhichthereturnsare
derived
(4)Thereceiptbyapersonofashareoftheprofitsofabusinessisaprimafacieevidencethatheis
a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in
payment:

(a)Asadebtbyinstallmentsorotherwise
(b)Aswagesofanemployeeorrenttoalandlord
(c)Asanannuitytoawidoworrepresentativeofadeceasedpartner
(d)Asinterestonaloan,thoughtheamountofpaymentvarywiththeprofitsofthebusiness
(e) As the consideration for the sale of a goodwill of a business or other property by
installmentsorotherwise.

Applying the legal provision to the facts of this case, the following circumstances tend to prove
thatElfledowashimselfthepartnerofJimmyandNorberto:1)CresenciatestifiedthatJosegave
ElfledoP50,000.00,asshareinthepartnership,onadatethatcoincidedwiththepaymentofthe

[15]
initial capital in the partnership
(2) Elfledo ran the affairs of the partnership, wielding
absolutecontrol,powerandauthority,withoutanyinterventionoroppositionwhatsoeverfromany
[16]
ofpetitionersherein
(3) all of the properties, particularly the nine trucks of the partnership,
wereregisteredinthenameofElfledo(4)JimmytestifiedthatElfledodidnotreceivewagesor
salariesfromthepartnership,indicatingthatwhatheactuallyreceivedweresharesoftheprofitsof
[17]
thebusiness
and(5)noneofthepetitioners,asheirsofJose,theallegedpartner, demanded
periodicaccountingfromElfledoduringhislifetime.AsrepeatedlystressedinHeirsofTanEng
[18]
Kee,
ademandforperiodicaccountingisevidenceofapartnership.
Furthermore, petitioners failed to adduce any evidence to show that the real and personal
propertiesacquiredandregisteredinthenamesofElfledoandrespondentformedpartoftheestate
ofJose,havingbeenderivedfromJose'sallegedpartnershipwithJimmyandNorberto.Theyfailed
torefuterespondent'sclaimthatElfledoandrespondentengagedinotherbusinesses.Edisoneven
[19]
admittedthatElfledoalsosoldInterwoodlumberasasideline.
Petitionerscouldnotofferany
credibleevidenceotherthantheirbareassertions.Thus,weapplythebasicruleofevidencethat
[20]
betweendocumentaryandoralevidence,theformercarriesmoreweight.

Finally,weagreewiththejudiciousfindingsoftheCA,towit:

The above testimonies prove that Elfledo was not just a hired help but one of the partners in the
trucking business, active and visible in the running of its affairs from day one until this ceased
operations upon his demise. The extent of his control, administration and management of the
partnershipanditsbusiness,thefactthatitspropertieswereplacedinhisname,andthathewasnot
paid salary or other compensation by the partners, are indicative of the fact that Elfledo was a
partner and a controlling one at that.It is apparent that the other partners only contributed in the
initial capital but had no say thereafter on how the business was ran. Evidently it was through
Elfredoseffortsandhardworkthatthepartnershipwasabletoacquiremoretrucksandotherwise
prosper.Eventheappellantparticipatedintheaffairsofthepartnershipbyactingasthebookkeeper
sanssalary.

ItisnotabletoothatJoseLimdiedwhenthepartnershipwasbarelyayearold,andthepartnership
anditsbusinessnotonlycontinuedbutalsoflourished.IfitweretruethatitwasJoseLimandnot
Elfledowhowasthepartner,thenuponhisdeaththepartnershipshouldhave
been dissolved and its assets liquidated. On the contrary, these were not done but instead its
operationcontinuedunderthehelmofElfledoandwithoutanyparticipationfromtheheirsofJose
Lim.

Whateverpropertiesappellantandherhusbandhadacquired,thiswasthroughtheirownconcerted
effortsandhardwork.Elfledodidnotlimithimselftothebusinessoftheirpartnershipbutengaged
inotherlinesofbusinessesaswell.

Insum,wefindnocogentreasontodisturbthefindingsandtherulingoftheCAastheyareamply
supportedbythelawandbytheevidenceonrecord.
WHEREFORE,theinstantPetitionisDENIED.The assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated
June29,2005isAFFIRMED.Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecase
wasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,
I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

*AdditionalmemberinlieuofAssociateJusticeDiosdadoM.PeraltaperSpecialOrderNo.824datedFebruary12,2010.
[1]
Rollo,pp.931.
[2]
ParticularlydocketedasCAG.R.CVNo.83331pennedbyAssociateJusticeRobertoA.Barrios(deceased),withAssociateJustices
AmelitaG.TolentinoandVicenteS.E.Veloso,concurringid.at5769.
[3]
ParticularlydocketedasCivilCaseNo.9760rollo,pp.4955.
[4]
Records,pp.19.
[5]
CArollo,pp.116128.
[6]
Id.at157158.
[7]
Petitioners'Memorandumrollo,pp.271295,at285.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Respondent'sMemorandumid.at204234.
[10]
FranciscoMadridandEdgardoBernardov.SpousesBonifacioMapoyandFelicidadMartinez,G.R.No.150887,August14,2009.
(Citationsomitted.)
[11]
Ontimare,Jr.v.Elep,G.R.No.159224,January20,2006,479SCRA257,265.
[12]
Litonjua,Jr.v.Litonjua,Sr.,G.R.Nos.166299300,December13,2005,477SCRA576,584.
[13]
PerfectaCavile,JosedelaCruzandRuralBankofBayawan,Inc.v.JustinaLitaniaHong,accompaniedandjoinedbyherhusband,
LeopoldoHongandGenovevaLitania,G.R.No.179540,March13,2009,citingGov.CourtofAppeals,403Phil.883,890891(2001).
[14]
396Phil.68(2000).
[15]
TSN,June8,1999,pp.4,8and910.
[16]
TSN,May2,2000,p.17.
[17]
Id.at1516.
[18]
Supranote14,at83,citingEstanislao,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,160SCRA830,837(1988).
[19]
TSN,September15,1999,p.8.
[20]
SPO2Yapv.JudgeInopiquez,Jr.,451Phil.182,192(2003),citingRomagoElectricCo.,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,333SCRA291,
302(2000),furthercitingEreetav.Bezore,54SCRA13(1973)andSorianov.CompaiaGeneraldeTabacosdeFilipinas,18SCRA999
(1966) and Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 685, 696 (1993), further citing Marvel Building
Corporation,etal.v.David,94Phil.376(1954).