Title
Lee Eng Hong vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 114145
Decision Date
Feb 15, 1995
Dispute over ownership of a building and furniture business assets; Supreme Court favored Lee Eng Hong, citing documentary evidence and trial court credibility findings.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 114145)

Case Background

The case involves an action for reconveyance, damages, and accounting initiated by Benjamin D. Yu against Lee Eng Hong and Rosalinda Villacorta. The Regional Trial Court of Cebu originally ruled in favor of the petitioners, but this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which ordered the petitioners to account for the funds and assets of the Asia Furniture Center Company and the Cebu Asia Furniture Company, asserting that these belonged to the estate of Yu Ching, the late father of the respondent.

Petitioners’ Relationship and Claims

Lee Eng Hong is the son of deceased parents Tan Siu and Ivy Leung Chee Lue, while Rosalinda Villacorta is his half-sister. Both are engaged in the furniture business. Lee Eng Hong, originally from China, immigrated to the Philippines in 1978 as a foreign investor. He claimed he brought in substantial capital and had a significant role in the family business formerly known as Manila Furniture, which later became Cebu Asia Furniture.

Respondent's Claims

Benjamin D. Yu, son of Yu Ching and Gregoria Doquiles, contends that the assets and properties of the furniture business, including the disputed building, are solely owned by his late father. He contends that Lee Eng Hong acted merely as a "dummy" for Yu Ching and had no legitimate claim to the business or the building.

Trial Court Findings

The Regional Trial Court dismissed Benjamin Yu’s complaint, deeming it baseless given the lack of substantial documentary evidence. It found merit in the petitioners' claims regarding their ownership and relationship to the business and awarded damages to them.

Court of Appeals' Reversal

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, commanding the petitioners to render an accounting and reconvey company assets to Yu Ching's estate, citing inaccuracies in the trial court’s findings and claims regarding ownership and partnerships within the furniture business.

Issues Presented

Petitioners identified several issues for review:

  1. The disregard by the appellate court of the trial court's advantages in determining truth.
  2. The superior weight of documentary evidence over testimonial evidence.
  3. Alleged errors in ignoring petitioners' financial evidence.
  4. Contradictory conclusions on the disputed business by the appeals court.
  5. The wrongful rejection of awarded damages and attorney fees.

Appellate Court's Approach to Evidence

In their assertion, the parties highlighted the appellate court's tendency to overlook established principles—that trial courts possess greater credibility in evaluating eyewitness testimonies compared to appeals courts. The appellate ruling relied on testimonial evidence from Benjamin Yu, which contrasted significantly with the documentary evidence supporting petitioners' claims.

Credibility of Evidence

The Supreme Court confirmed that the trial court's findings regarding credibility should hold significant weight, especially since the trial court found the petitioners' testimonies more credible and logical. The evidence presented included various documents proving the financial contributions and ownership roles of the petitioners in the furniture business.

Ownership Dispute

The dispute further centered on the ownership of the building situated on El Filibusterismo Street. The petitioners contended that the construction capital for the building predominantly came from Ivy Leung Ch

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.