FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 238270. July 28, 2020.]

AMELIA TILAN GALVAN, petitioner, vs. LOLITA TILAN SEGUNDO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 28, 2020 which
reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 238270 — AMELIA TILAN GALVAN vs. LOLITA TILAN SEGUNDO

The Case

This Petition for Review on Certiorari [1] assails the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 103818, viz.:

1) Decision [2] dated January 13, 2017 modifying the amount of necessary expenses incurred in
the preservation of the co-owned properties of petitioner Amelia Tilan Galvan and respondent
Lolita Tilan Segundo; and

2) Resolution [3] dated March 16, 2018 denying the respective partial motions for
reconsideration of both petitioner and respondent.

Antecedents

Petitioner Amelia Tilan Galvan and respondent Lolita Tilan Segundo are sisters. [4] On August 12,
2011, Amelia filed a complaint [5] for judicial partition and accounting with damages before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC)-Baguio City involving a house and lot under TCT No. T-19813 with an assessed value of
P52,000.00.

Amelia mainly averred: On March 24, 1972, their uncle Pedro Dor-as purchased from Martha Prill a
450-square meter lot with residential house along Rimando Road, Trancoville, Baguio City. In the Deed of
Absolute Sale of Realty [6] dated March 24, 1972, Pedro named her and Lolita as buyers. The sisters
subsequently registered the property in their names under TCT No. T-19813 before the Registry of Deeds,
Baguio City. [7] After the title got transferred to their names, she and Lolita both lived in the house. Lolita
paid for the property's maintenance and real property taxes since 1972. [8]

In 1979, she (Amelia) got married. She still stayed in the house with her family. In 1987, she left to
work abroad. Her husband and children continued to live with Lolita. When she came back in 1989, they
moved to Manila because Lolita scolded her children to leave. But whenever she visited Baguio City, she
stayed in the house with Lolita. [9]
 In 1990, Lolita converted the house's basement into a three-bedroom structure for rent (old building).
Lolita never gave her any share in the rent collections. Part of these collections was used for the old
building's maintenance and other expenses. Between 1999 and 2001, she discovered that a four-storey
building was constructed on the lot (new building). The three (3) bedrooms of the new building were also
rented out by Lolita. Lolita made all these improvements on the lot without her knowledge. Both the old and
new buildings were leased out up to the present. [10]
She co-owned the lot and old building with Lolita. She did not waive or transfer her rights thereto.
She prayed that the properties be equally divided. [11]

In her answer, [12] Lolita claimed to be the sole owner of the old building and lot under TCT No. T-
19813. She asserted that Pedro bought the house and lot from Martha Prill as a gift for taking care of him
until he died. Amelia's name was included on the Deed of Absolute Sale of Realty not to make her as co-
owner but to assure that Lolita would send her to school and finance her nursing degree. [13] She took care
of Amelia until she finished college. She spent P206,788.50 exclusive of Amelia's board review and
licensure examination expenses. In exchange, Amelia agreed to waive her rights over the properties. But
out of trust, they no longer executed a written agreement to that effect. [14]

In March 2010, Amelia suffered a stroke during one of her visits to Baguio City. She lent her
P21,073.08 for hospitalization and medical expenses. Amelia, however, reneged on her promise to pay. She
then asked her to sign a waiver over her share in the properties. But Amelia refused. Amelia insisted that
she be given a 100-square meter portion of the lot or a room in the old building for her and her family
instead. She did not accede because of their earlier agreement that Amelia would waive any claim over the
properties. [15]

From 1972 to October 2013, she alone paid for the real property taxes on the old building and lot
amounting to P77,229.43. [16] She incurred P99,877.12 for the water and electricity bill from March 2005 to
October 2013, P3,414.30 for garbage fee from 1989 to 2012, and P197,400.00 for monthly cleaning fee
from 1973 to October 2013. [17]

She also spent P890,000.00 for the old building and lot's improvement, repair, and maintenance,
broken down, as follows: [18]

TABLE NO. 1

Year Specification Amount

1984 Change of wood parts of the old P30,000.00

building's basement; concreting,
cementing, and painting of walls.

1990 Repair of the old building due to 100,000.00

earthquake and riprapping of
pathway.

Enlargement of the living room; 100,000.00

construction of additional room;
 and construction of a porch.

1992 Enlargement of the dining room 120,000.00

area and construction of dirty
kitchen outside the old building.

1995 Cementing of the driveway. 35,000.00

2001 Replacement of the roof, tiling of 500,000.00

the kitchen, toilet, bathroom, and
balcony; cementing of the
laundry area, and painting of the
old building.

2012 Installation of electric wires and 5,000.00

heater [19] in the bathroom.

TOTAL: P890,000.00

As of October 2013, her rent collections from the old building's leased portions totalled P414,000.00.
[20]

Should the court order accounting and partition of the properties, she asked for reimbursement of the
total amount she spent for their preservation, including her expenses for Amelia's education and healthcare,
[21] viz.:

TABLE NO. 2

Year Specification Amount

1972 to Improvements P890,000.00

October 2013

1972 to Real property taxes (old building 77,229.43

October 2013 and lot)

March 2005 to City Services (water & 99,877.12

October 2013 electricity) [22]

1989 to 2012 Garbage Fee 3,414.30

1973 to Cleaning Fee 197,400.00

October 2013

1970 to 1974 For nursing course of Amelia 206,788.50

 2010 For hospitalization & medicines 21,073.08
of Amelia

TOTAL: P1,495,782.43

As for the new building, her granddaughter Mavelyn Go and husband Jimmy Go caused its
construction and shouldered the expenses for it, viz.: (1) P3,500,000.00 for the construction; (2)
P901,000.00 for the improvements since 2001; (3) P138,911.52 for real property taxes from January 2001 to
January 2012; (4) P5,330,300.77 on various fees; and (5) P37,575.25 for business permits for 2003 and
2013. [23] They generated total rent earnings of P898,100.00 from the three (3) bedrooms. [24] Mavelyn
corroborated her testimony. [25]

The Trial Court's Ruling

By Decision [26] dated June 30, 2014, the RTC-Baguio City, Branch 3 ruled that Amelia and Lolita
were co-owners of the old building and lot under TCT No. T-19813. Lolita failed to rebut the presumption of
co-ownership. Amelia's supposed waiver of rights was an admission against Lolita's interest.

As for accounting of benefits received and reimbursement of expenses, the trial court only approved
the amount of P207,229.43 as necessary expenses and real property taxes for the co-owned lot and old
building broken down, as follows:

TABLE NO. 3

Year Specification Amount

1984 Change of wood parts of the old P30,000.00

building's basement; concreting,
cementing, and painting of walls.

1990 Repair of the old building due to 100,000.00

earthquake and riprapping of
pathway.

1972 to Real property taxes (old building 77,229.43

October 2013 and lot)

TOTAL: P207,229.43

The costs for the expansion of the living room, additional room, and construction of porch in 1990
were not necessary expenses as they were mere embellishments. In the same vein, the amount spent for
improvements in the years 1992, 1995, 2001, and 2012 were also not necessary expenses. They were not
incurred for the preservation of the old building and lot. Too, the amount Lolita paid for Amelia's
hospitalization and schooling were not deductible.
 Thus, from the proven rent collections of P414,000.00 less P207,229.43 necessary expenses and
real property taxes, the remaining net rent earnings from the old building was ordered equally divided
between Amelia and Lolita. All other claims were denied by the trial court. As for the new building, Mavelyn
was ordered to intervene to properly determine her interest thereon. The fallo of the RTC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Judgment is hereby rendered declaring

Plaintiff, AMELIA TILAN GALVAN, co-owner of the entire lot covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-19813 of the Registry of Deeds of Baguio City, as well as the old residential
building located therein. The same is ordered equally divided between Plaintiff and Defendant
LOLITA TILAN SEGUNDO in accordance with Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. From the rentals
of Php414,000.00 should be deducted Php207,229.43 representing Defendant's expenses for
preserving the subject property. The remainder should be divided between Plaintiff and
Defendant.

Mavelyn Go is hereby given fifteen (15) days to intervene to protect whatever rights
she may have over the new four-storey building.

SO ORDERED. [27]

Lolita moved for reconsideration but it was denied on August 8, 2014. [28]

Proceedings before the Court of Appeals.

On appeal, [29] Lolita insisted she was the sole owner of the old building and lot under TCT No. T-
19813. She was unaware of the consequence of failing to document her verbal agreement with Amelia. She
trusted her sister would not deny it. Amelia did not object to the presentation of parol evidence during the
trial. [30]

Lolita, nonetheless, prayed that the amount of P549,777.12 be added to Amelia's share in the
necessary expenses should the court affirm the existence of co-ownership between them, viz.:

TABLE NO. 4

Year Specification Amount

2001 1/2 of the P500,000.00 spent for P250,000.00

replacement of the roof, tiling of
the kitchen, toilet, bathroom, and
balcony; cementing of the
laundry area, and painting of the
old building.

2012 1/2 of the P5,000.00 spent for 2,500.00

the installation of electric wires
and heater [31] in the bathroom.

March 2005 to Water expense 18,506.27

December 2008
 December 2010 Water expense 27,168.54
to October
2013

December 2010 Electricity expense 50,788.01

to October
2013

1989 to 2012 Garbage Fee 3,414.30

1973 to Cleaning Fee 197,400.00

October 2013

TOTAL: P549,777.12

Amelia countered that the Deed of Absolute Sale of Realty and TCT No. T-19813 issued under her
name and that of Lolita deserve greater weight as proof of co-ownership. Lolita alone should shoulder the
expenses and taxes for the old building and lot since it was she and her family who resided there since she
left in 1989. Lastly, Lolita did not inform her of the repairs and improvements made on the old building and
the lot. [32]

The Court of Appeals' Ruling

Under Decision [33] dated January 13, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed in the main, with
modification of the money award.
It affirmed the trial court's finding that the Deed of Absolute Sale of Realty was the best evidence to
prove Lolita and Amelia's co-ownership. On the other hand, it did not accept Lolita's argument on the
supposed application of parol evidence in the case. It found that the language in the Deed was plain and
clear. No extrinsic evidence was needed to determine the parties' real intention.

Further, Lolita's claim that Amelia renounced her share after financing her nursing degree even
weakened Lolita's theory that Pedro gave the properties solely to her. As the trial court aptly found, it was an
admission against her interest. Too, the existence of co-ownership between Lolita and Amelia was bolstered
by TCT No. T-19813 issued under both their names. As between the unsubstantiated testimonies of Lolita
and Mavelyn, Amelia's documentary evidence were certainly more reliable. [34]

As for the necessary expenses for the old building and lot, however, the Court of Appeals added
P802,277.12 to the P207,229.43 adjudged by the RTC, viz.:

TABLE NO. 5

Year Specification Amount

2001 Entire amount spent for P500,000.00

replacement of the roof, tiling of
the kitchen, toilet, bathroom, and
 balcony; cementing of the
laundry area, and painting of the
old building.

2012 Entire amount spent for the 5,000.00

installation of electric wires and
heater [35] in the bathroom.

March 2005 to Water expense [36] 45,674.81

October 2013

December 2010 Electricity expense 50,788.01

to October
2013

1989 to 2012 Garbage Fee 3,414.30

1973 to Cleaning Fee 197,400.00

October 2013

TOTAL: P802,277.12

The Court of Appeals thus ordered Amelia to reimburse the amount of P297,753.275 to Lolita as her
share in the necessary expenses computed, thus:
TABLE NO. 6

Nature Amount

Additional necessary expenses per the Court of P802,277.12

Appeals

Amount of necessary expenses and real property + P207,229.43

taxes per the RTC

Total amount of necessary expenses and real = P1,009,506.55

property taxes per the Court of Appeals

Less: Proven rentals from the old building (P414,000.00)

Amount to be divided equally between Amelia and = P595,506.55

Lolita pursuant to Article 485 of the New Civil
Code [37]
 Amount which Amelia should reimburse to Lolita TOTAL:
(1/2 of P595,506.55) P297,753.275

The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' Decision [38] reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assailed June 30,
2014 Decision and August 8, 2014 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Baguio City in
Civil Case No. 7447-R are hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that the total rentals of
P414,000.00 are applied to the expenses for preservation and improvement of the subject
properties and Amelia is further directed to pay P297,753.275 to defendant-appellant Lolita
Tilan Segundo as reimbursement for necessary expenses.

SO ORDERED. [39]

Amelia and Lolita filed their respective motions for partial reconsideration but both were denied under
Resolution [40] dated March 16, 2018.

The Present Petition

Only Amelia came to the Court via the petition for review on certiorari. [41] She prays that the
assailed dispositions of the Court of Appeals be reversed with respect to the award of additional necessary
expenses, and the computation of the RTC, reinstated. [42]

In her comment, [43] Lolita ripostes that the Court of Appeals correctly increased the amount of
necessary expenses as they were all incurred for the preservation of the old building and lot. She no longer
questions the affirmance of the co-ownership and equal partition of the old building and lot under TCT No. T-
19813. [44]

Issue

Did the Court of Appeals err in its computation of the necessary expenses incurred for the
preservation of the co-owned properties?

Ruling

The petition utterly lacks merit.

As a rule, factual findings of the courts below will not be reviewed nor disturbed by the Court. An
exception, among others, is when as in this case, the factual findings of the trial court, on one hand, and
those of the Court of Appeals, on the other are conflicting. [45] In such a case, the Court will have to make its
own appreciation of the evidence and factual findings based thereon. Here, the Court is compelled to review
the evidence pertaining to the necessary expenses for the preservation of the old building and lot in
question.

Article 488 [46] of the New Civil Code provides that a co-owner shall have a right to compel the other
co-owners to contribute to the "expenses for the preservation of the thing" or "right owned in common
and to the taxes." In relation thereto, Article 485 [47] states that the co-owners should share proportionately,
if not equally, in the expenses and benefits over the property. Both provisions speak of necessary
expenses which the co-owners must proportionately or equally share.

National Housing Authority v. Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc. [48] defines necessary
expenses as those made for the preservation of the thing or those without which the thing would deteriorate
or be lost. These may include expenditures incurred for its cultivation, production, and upkeep.

Jurisprudence cited several examples of necessary expenses, viz.: (1) advance payments on loan to
save the foreclosure of a co-owned lot; [49] (2) expenses paid to redeem a co-owned land sold under pacto
de retro sale; [50] (3) costs incurred to repair two (2) lots containing fishponds; [51] and (4) money spent to
protect the usufruct land from squatter syndicates. [52]

On the other hand, useful expenses are those incurred to give greater utility or productivity to the
thing. [53] Calagan v. Court of First Instance of Davao [54] referred to them as those which improve or
increase the value of the property. The key words, therefore, are: "preservation of the thing" for necessary
expenses and "improvement of the thing" for useful expenses.

The following are considered useful expenses: (1) costs for the construction of dikes and leveling of
an agricultural land; [55] (2) filling in and improvement of a lot; [56] (3) construction of a house; [57] and (4)
filling the land with big stones or rocks (escumbro) and enclosing the same with hollow blocks before
constructing a residential house thereon. [58]

Here, Lolita testified [59] that Amelia should reimburse her the sum of P1,495,782.43, viz.: [60]

xxx xxx xxx

Q: Can you give the Honorable Court a list of all your expenses, as well as the rentals that
you collected?

A: My total expenses and rentals collected are as follows, Sir:

I. Expenses (as of October 2013) Total

a. Improvements 890,000.00

b. Realty Taxes 77,229.43

c. City Services (water & electricity) [61] 99,887.12

d. Garbage Fee 3,414.30

e. Cleaning Fee 197,400.00

f. For nursing course of Amelia 206,788.50

g. For hospitalization & medicines of Amelia 21,073.08

Grand Total (for Expenses) 1,495,782.43

 II. Net Income from rentals (as of October 414,000.00
2013)

Out of P1,495,782.43, the amount of P890,000.00 was allegedly incurred for the improvement,
repair, and maintenance of the old building and lot. (Refer to Table No. 1)

The trial court, however, ruled that only the following may be treated as necessary expenses: (1)
P30,000.00 for the expenses incurred in 1984 for the change of the wood parts of the old building's
basement, cementing and painting of walls; (2) P100,000.00 or half of the P200,000.00 spent for the works
made in 1990. The costs for the enlargement of living room, construction of additional room and porch were
mere embellishments; and (3) P77,229.43 for the real property taxes paid from 1972 to October 2013. The
total of these amounts is P207,229.43. (Refer to Table No. 3)

The trial court did not consider the rest of the expenses incurred in the years 1990, 1992, 1995,
2001, and 2012 as necessary expenses since they were not allegedly spent for the preservation of the old
building and lot. The expenses incurred by Lolita for Amelia's hospitalization and education were also not
considered necessary expenses.

Out of the rental earnings of P414,000.00 less P207,229.43, the trial court ordered Amelia and Lolita
to equally divide the remaining net rental earnings from the old building.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals added the following necessary expenses: (1) P500,000.00 for the
replacement of the roof; tiling of the kitchen, toilet, bathroom, and balcony; cementing of the laundry area;
and painting of the old building in 2001; (2) P5,000.00 incurred for the installation of electrical wires and
heater in the bathroom in 2012; (3) P45,674.81 for water utilities from March 2005 to October 2013; (4)
P50,788.00 for electricity from December 2010 to October 2013; (5) P3,414.30 for garbage collection from
1989 to 2012; and (6) P197,400.00 for monthly cleaning fees from 1973 to October 2013. The total of these
amounts is P802,277.12. (Refer to Table No. 5)

The sum of P802,277.12 was added to the P207,229.43 previously adjudged by the trial court. The
total necessary expenses incurred for the properties, therefore, amounted to P1,009,506.55. After off-setting
the rental earnings of P414,000.00, the balance of P595,506.55 was ordered equally divided between
Amelia and Lolita. The Court of Appeals thus ordered Amelia to reimburse Lolita the amount of
P297,753.275. (Refer to Table No. 6)

We find the foregoing disposition of the Court of Appeals to be in accord with law and the evidence.

First off, the parties both do not challenge the trial court's finding that the amount of P207,229.43
representing: (1) expenses incurred in 1984 for the change of the wood parts of the old building's basement,
cementing and painting of walls; (2) cost for the repair of the old building in 1990 due to earthquake and
riprapping of pathway; and (3) real property taxes paid from 1972 to October 2013, are indeed necessary
expenses for the preservation of the old building and the lot.

The issue here boils down only to the additional amount of P802,277.12 which the Court of Appeals
required the parties to equally shoulder as well because the items for which it was spent were also
necessary for the upkeep of the old building and the lot.
 Notably, the old building was already erected on the lot long before Amelia and Lolita's uncle Pedro
Dor-as bought the property on March 24, 1972. It was already in 2001, or almost thirty (30) years thereafter
when Lolita spent P500,000.00 for the (1) replacement of the roof; (2) tiling of the kitchen, toilet, bathroom,
and balcony; (3) cementing of the laundry area; and (4) painting of the old building. Clearly, these are
necessary expenses for the preservation of a structure which had already deteriorated with the passage of
time. Simply put, these are repairs caused by ordinary wear and tear. Without Lolita paying for these
expenses, the co-owned property will be impaired, nay, rendered useless. [62]

Too, the co-owned properties are located in Baguio City. The weather is almost always cold. Thus, a
source of heat is indispensable. The installation of electrical wirings and heater are, therefore, essential.
Further, it is unimaginable to live in a house where there is no water, electricity, cleaning, and collection of
garbage. These are inherent costs to make the house habitable not only for Lolita or her lessees but even
for Amelia who admittedly stays in Baguio City whenever she visits there.

In this light, the Court of Appeals was correct in adding the foregoing items with a sum of
P802,277.12 to the P207,229.43 adjudged by the trial court since they are indubitably necessary and
essential for the preservation of the co-owned lot and building pursuant to Article 488, in relation to Article
485 [n] of the New Civil Code.

Verily, from the sum of P802,277.12 less the proven earned rentals of P414,000.00 from the old
building, the Court of Appeals correctly ordered Amelia and Lolita to equally divide the remaining necessary
expenses of P595,506.55. Amelia, therefore, should reimburse Lolita P297,753.28. [63]

Indeed, the primary purpose of co-ownership is the collective enjoyment of the thing owned in
common. [64] Co-owners are given right to enjoy common dominion over the physical whole and each co-
owner who has spiritual part of the thing [65] must respect each other in its common use, enjoyment, or
preservation. [66] As such, a co-owner is afforded right to compel the others to reimburse the necessary
expenses spent for the preservation of the co-owned properties since they were similarly benefited
therefrom. [67]

Certainly, after receiving the fruits from the leased portion of the old building, Amelia stand to be
benefited from the necessary expenses spent by Lolita for the preservation of the co-owned properties. As
the Court of Appeals aptly found, it is only proper to require Amelia to also share in the cost of preservation
and maintenance as co-owner. [68] As it was, Amelia gained from the cost incurred since up to present the
old building is still erected and rental income is continuously flowing from the lessees who inhabit therein.

Finally, to conform with the guidelines set in Nacar v. Gallery Frames, [69] the amount of
P297,753.28 [70] shall earn interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

ACCORDINGLY, the Decision dated January 13, 2017 and Resolution dated March 16, 2018 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 103818 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Amelia Tilan
Galvan is ORDERED to PAY respondent Lolita Tilan Segundo the amount of TWO HUNDRED NINETY
SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THREE AND 28/100 (P297,753.28) as her equal share in
the necessary expenses incurred for the co-owned lot and old building under TCT No. T-19813. This amount
shall earn interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.

SO ORDERED."
 By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Division Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO

Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 13-27.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justice Rodil V.
Zalameda (now a member of the Court) and Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, all members of the
Eleventh Division, rollo, pp. 34-49.

3. Rollo, pp. 51-52.

4. Complaint dated August 11, 2011, rollo, pp. 53-57.

5. Id.

6. Rollo, p. 128.

7. Id. at 124-125.

8. Complaint dated August 11, 2011, rollo, pp. 53-57.

9. Id.

10. Id.

11. Id.

12. Answer with Counterclaim dated September 22, 2011, rollo, pp. 83-86.

13. Id.

14. See Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Lolita Tilan Segundo dated November 20, 20 13, Id. at 344-
363.

15. Id.

16. Id. at 355.

17. Id.

18. Id. at 344-363.

19. "hot shower" in the original text of Lolita Tilan Segundo's Supplemental Judicial Affidavit dated
November 20, 2013, id. at 344-363.

20. See Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Lolita Tilan Segundo dated November 20, 2013, id.

21. Id. at 38-40.

22. Breakdown:

a) Water: P27,168.54 (December 2010 to October 2013) and P18,506.27 (March 2005 to December
2008).

b) Electricity: P50,788.01 (December 2010 to October 2013); See Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of
Lolita Tilan Segundo dated November 20, 2013, id. at 344-363.

23. Id. at 39.

24. Id. at 38-40.

25. See Judicial Affidavit of Mavelyn Doras Go dated September 20, 2013, id. at 129-138.

26. Penned by Judge Emmanuel Cacho Rasing, id. at 287-301.

27. Id. at 301.

28. Id. at 302.

29. Appeal Brief for Defendant-Appellant dated November 21, 2015; id. at 265-286.

30. Id.

31. "hot shower" in the original text of Lolita Tilan Segundo's Supplemental Judicial Affidavit dated
November 20, 2013, id. at 344-363.

32. Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee dated April 13, 2016, id. at 303-320.

33. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justice Rodil V.
Zalameda (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, all members of the
Eleventh Division, rollo, pp. 34-49.

34. The Court of Appeals cited Seaoil Petroleum v. Autocorp Group, 590 Phil. 410 (2008).

35. "hot shower" in the original text of Lolita Tilan Segundo's Supplemental Judicial Affidavit dated
November 20, 2013, rollo, pp. 344-363.
36. In the Court of Appeals' Decision, Lolita's claim for water expenses from March 2005 to December
2008 (P18,506.27) and from December 2010 to October 2013 (P27,168.54) were summed up to
P45,674.81, See rollo, p. 48.

37. ARTICLE 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be
proportional to their respective interests. (Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, [June 18,
1949])

38. Rollo, pp. 34-49.

39. Id. at 49.

40. Id. at 51-52.

41. Petition for Review on Certiorari dated May 16, 2018, id. at 13-32.

42. Id.

43. Comment on the Petition dated September 2, 2018, id. at 440-444.

44. Id.

45. Magalang v. Spouses Heretape, G.R. No. 199558, August 14, 2019.

46. ARTICLE 488. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the
expenses of preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to the taxes. x x x (New Civil
Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, June 18, 1949).

47. ARTICLE 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be
proportional to their respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void.
(New Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, June 18, 1949).

48. 787 Phil. 531, 539 (2016).

49. Taghoy v. Spouses Tigol, Jr., 640 Phil. 385 (2010).

50. Paulmitan v. Court of Appeals, 290 Phil. 376 (1992).

51. Maclan v. Garcia, 97 Phil. 119 (1955).

52. National Housing Authority v. Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc., 787 Phil. 531, 536 (2016).

53. Isaguirre v. De Lara, 388 Phil. 607, 622 (2000); citing Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines II, 294
(1992).

54. 184 Phil. 433-439 (1980); citing Articles 488-489 of the Civil Code.

55. Santos v. De Guzman, 111 Phil. 671 (1961).

56. Alburo v. Villanueva, 7 Phil. 277 (1907).

57. Valencia v. De Roxas, 13 Phil. 45 (1909).

58. Cabangis v. Court of Appeals, 277 Phil. 475 (1991).

59. Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Lolita Tilan Segundo dated November 20, 2013; rollo, pp. 344-363.

60. See Table No. 2.

61. Breakdown:

c) Water: P27,168.54 (December 2010 to October 2013) and P18,506.27 (March 2005 to December
2008).

d) Electricity: P50,788.01 (December 2010 to October 2013); See Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of
Lolita Tilan Segundo dated November 20, 2013, rollo, pp. 344-363.

62. National Housing Authority v. Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc., supra note 52 at 540.

63. Rounded-off into two (2) decimal points.

64. The Court in Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, 298 Phil. 252, 261 (1993), elucidates: A co-owner may use
the property owned in common so long as it is in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended
and in a manner not injurious to the interest of the other co-owners; See also Paras, Civil Code of the
Philippines Annotated, 2008 Sixteenth Edition ed., p. 320 (Discussion on Co-ownership).

65. Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, 452 Phil. 665, 675 (2003).

66. Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, 2008 Sixteenth Edition ed., p. 320 (Discussion on Co-
ownership).

67. ARTICLE 488, Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, June 18, 1949; See also Trinidad
v. Ricafort, 7 Phil. 449 (1907).

68. Rollo, p. 48.

69. 716 Phil. 267, 278-279 (2013).

II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages,
the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows: x x x

3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of
legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 6% per annum
from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to
a forbearance of credit.

70. Rounded-off into two (2) decimal points.

n Note from the Publisher: Written as "485" in the official document.