Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/40673785/Trust-Digests
Timestamp: 2017-01-18 00:00:15
Document Index: 540693003

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 1257', 'Art.500', 'Art 1465', 'Art 1443', 'Art. 3', 'art 925', 'art 925']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin1|P ag e131. Salao vs. Salao, 70 SCRA 65
lots at P1 each, in conformity with the verbal wish of the late Don Mariano Molo y Legaspi and the late Dona Juana Francisco Juan y Molo. On August 9, 1956, however, the same Emiliana and Pilar, assisted by their husbands, executed another document in which they revoked the so-called mutual agreement mentioned above, and another relating to the same subject matter, stating therein that the parties, "after matured and thorough study, realized that the above-mentioned public instruments . . . do not represent their true and correct interpretation of the verbal wishes of the late spouses Don Mariano Molo y Legaspi and Dona Juana Francisco Juan y Molo." On August 11, 1956, the beneficiary Resurreccion de Leon and Justa de Leon, thru their counsel demanded the conveyance to them of the ten parcels of land for the consideration of P1.00 per parcel as stated in the document of December 5, 1950. And having the defendants refused to do so, said beneficiaries consigned on July 8, 1957 the amount of P10.00 as the consideration of the ten parcels of land. TC: Trust has been constituted by the late spouses Mariano Molo and Juana Juan over the ten parcels of land in question in favor plaintiffs as beneficiaries. SC: Affirmed TC judgment (with minor modifications with regard to accounting)2. The Mutual Agreement plaintiff-appelees. y creates an express trust in favor of
The Mutual Agreement represents a recognition of pre-existing trust or a declaration of an express trust impressed on the ten
Pertinent Portions of the Mutual Agreement
2 The trial court ordered that the accounting be made from the time appellees demanded the conveyance of the ten parcels of land on August 11, 1956, in accordance with Article 1164 of the new Civil Code which provides that the creditor has a right to the fruit of the thing from thetime the obligation to deliver it arises. But this cannot be done without first submitting proof that the conditions stated in the mutual agreement hadbeen complied with. And this only happened when the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-8774 became final and executory. The ruling of the trialcourt in this respect should therefore be modified in the sense that the accounting should be made from the date of the finality of the said decision.
That the above named parties hereby mutually agree by these presents . . . that the following lots should be sold at ONE (1) PESO each to the following persons and organization: TO JUSTA DE LEON and RESURRECCION DE LEON, several parcels of land located at Calle Tolentino (South of Tenorio and Kapitan Magtibay), Pasay City, share and share alike or half and half of TEN (10) LOTS described in: Transfer Certificate of Title No. 28157 (a) To JUSTA DE LEON Five (5) Lots. and allocated as follows:
title to which he holds.3|P ag e
parcels of land in question. It cannot be revoked by the creator alone. y Obiter: On the Validity of the Mutual Agreement y Mutual Agreement was executed by appellants on December 5.
Appellants had no right to revoke the trust without the consent of the cestui que trust y It is true. The fact that the beneficiaries were not notified of the existence of the trust or that the latter have not been given an opportunity to accept it is of no importance. and having been revoked it cannot be accepted. This is correct. Here. they have more than ample time the six months intervening betwen the death of the donor and the execution of the document to ponder not only wish of their predecessors-ininterest but also on the propriety of putting in writing the mandate they have received. The express trust was constituted during the lifetime of the predecessor-ininterest of appellants. therefore. The contention of appellants that the will and the donation executed by their predecessors-in-interest were absolute for it did not contain a hint that the lots in question will be held in trust by them does not merit weight because the fact that an express trust was created by a deed which was absolute on its face may be shown by a writing separate from the deed itself. reasonable to presume that that document represents the real wish of appellants' predecessors-ininterest. but the attempted revocation did not have any legal effect. for as trustees it is their duty to deliver the properties to thecestui que trust free from all liens and encumbrances. that the alleged declaration of trust was revoked. In fact. the acknowledgement appended to the document they subscribed states that it was "their own free act and voluntary deed. But the Civil Code of 1889 contains no specific provisions on trust as does the new Civil Code. after the effectivity of said Code. for it is not essential to the existence of a valid trust and to the right of the beneficiaries to enforce the same that they had knowledge thereof the time of its creation. y The document in question clearly and unequivocally declares the existence of the trust even if the same was executed subsequent to the death of the trustor. The Civil Code of 1889 and previous laws and authorities on the matter." Emiliana and Pilar both studied in reputable centers (one being a pharmacist and the other a lawyer) so it is to be supposed that they understood and comprehended the legal import of the Mutual Agreement they executed. 1950. In fact it has been held that in case of a voluntary trust the assent of the beneficiary is not necessary to render it valid because as a general rule acceptance by the beneficiary is presumed. that is. as appellants contend. therefore. there is no such reservation. The rule is that in the absence of any reservation of the power to revoke a voluntary trust is irrevocable without the consent of the beneficiary. Juana Juan. should govern the herein trust under the provisions of Article 2253 of the new Civil code.
. Neither is it necessary that the beneficiary should consent to the creation of the trust. although the instrument recognizing and declaring such trust was executed on December 5. It is. or about two years and six months from the time they acquired title to the lands by virtue of the donation inter vivos executed in their favor by their foster mother Juana Juan and six months after the death of the donor. for the right creating or declaring a trust need not be contemporaneous or inter-parties. before the effectivity of the new Civil Code. except the constraining mandate of their conscience to comply with the obligations repeatedly told to Emiliana Molo Peckson before the death of Juana Juan. There is nobody who could cajole them to execute it. nor is there any force that could coerce them to make the declaration therein expressed. Neither does the Code of Civil Procedure of
Appellants should free said lands from all liens and encumbrances. is held by him for the use of another. 1950.
Obiter: On the issue of whether the lower court erred in applying the provisions of the new Civil Code on trust since this express trust was constituted before the effectivity of the NCC y Appellants contend that the lower court erred in applying the provisions of the new Civil Code on trust. y Appellants Emiliana and Pilar should free the lands in question from the encumbrance that was created thereon by them in favor of the Development Bank of the Philippines and one Claro Cortez. nor by the trustee. A declaration of trust has been defined as an act by which a person acknowledges that the property. Moreover.
. does not mean that the juridical institution of trust was then unknown in this jurisdiction. And these are the same principles on which we predicate our ruling heretofore stated and on which we now rely for the validity of trust in question. however. for the principles relied upon by the Supreme Court before the effectivity of the new Civil Code were those embodied in Anglo-American jurisprudence as derived from the Roman and Civil Law principles. This silence.4|P ag e
1901 for the same merely provides for the proceeding to be followed relative to trusts and trustees (Chapter XVIII).
46 Phil. Government vs.5|P ag e
133. Abadilla. 642
11. rent. 10. 1 April 1918 Marcelino finally paid off his debt with Banas Issue: WON Marcelino acted as a mere trustee despite the improvements made to the property of Epifanio? Held/Ratio Yes. wife of Epifanio Gomez. Facts: 1. 9. 50 Phil. Cristobal vs. the successors of Epifanio are entitled to demand fulfilment of the trust. Marcelino and Telesfora created a private partnership in participation for the purpose of redeeming the property. and sister. c. Marcelino and Telesfora will administer the property until the capital advanced by Banas should be paid off afterwhich the property will be returned to Epifanio. of both parties.500 3. 4. The contract must bind both contracting parties. (i) As soon as the capital employed. with the direct intervention. with its corresponding interest and other incidental expenses. Property was not redeemed in 5years. J This action was instituted in the CFI of Cavite by Paulina Cristobal. Marcelino claimed that the money used by him to redeem the property was his own. (NCC Art. the Court reasoned that since he was able to obtain enough from income from the property he was already able to reimburse himself for all outlays. (h) That all the income. shall have been covered. Epifanio remained in possession of the property but in the character of a lessee 4. The Court said that the trial court made no error in holding that Marcelino must surrender the property in litigation (and that he being dead. Telesfora conveyed her interest and share to Marcelino to free herself from the responsibility she assumed to Banas. for assistance. Gomez. and her children to recover from Marcelino Gomez (brother of Epifanio) two parcels of land located in the sitio of Japay. that is to say. for the sum of Php2. 2.00 to be used to repurchase the property in the name of Marcelino and Telesfora. it is made essential that he shall manifest good behavior in the opinion of Don Marcelino Gomez and Doña Telesfora Gomez jointly. Since Marcelino is now the lone debtor . 2. the same obligation devolves on his heirs). namely. said properties shall be returned to our brother Epifanio Gomez or to his legitimate children.6|P ag e
134. the Court pointed out that
. Epifanio had no means to repurchase applied to Bibiano Banas. or one of them. This was executed also on 10 Sept 1909. and that since the purpose had been accomplished. 6. Marcelino will act as the manager. (j) In order that the property of Epifanio Gomez may be returned. redeemable in 5 years. 810 (1927) Street. Marcelino. the property should be returned to Epifanio s legitimate children. Bibiano agreed on the condition that Epifanio s brother. Don Marcelino Gomez and Doña Telesfora Gomez. However. with its interest and other incidental expenses. However. Marcelino claimed that the trust agreement was kept secret from Epifanio such that the stipulation could not have accepted by him before revocation of the same. Banas eventually advanced Php7. Property in question belonged to Epifanio. and produce of the aforesaid property of Epifanio Gomez shall be applied exclusively to the amortization of the capital employed by the two parties. 1. The so-called partnership between Marcelino and Telesfora created a TRUST for the express purpose of securing the property of Epifanio. 13 Dec 1891 Epifanio sold the property under contract of sale with pacto de retro to Luis Yangco. Banas consented to such on 10 September 1909. 8. 1308. Among the provisions in the partnership agreement: a. b. But Yangco after many years conceded to the vendor the privilege of repurchasing 5. Telesfora. its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them. That under Art 1257 of the Civil Code. (1256a)) 3. Banas required him to execute a contract of sale with pacto de retro to secure the debt. a kinsman. 7. would make themselves responsible for the loan. Don Marcelino Gomez and Doña Telesfora Gomez. however.000.
There is no evidence that the defendant acted as trustee or that he ever recognized a trust. it is taken away from him without any compensation for his services. dealt with and treated the property as his own. Because Marcelino was not really holding adversely under a claim of title exclusive of any other right and adverse to all other claimants. Revocation due to the behavior of Epifanio should have been when he was still alive. and improved the property. 6. or that during the whole period of twenty years he ever rendered any accounting or that any one ever requested him to make an accounting. so as to give it a commercial value. his own money. Because he did that and the property now has increased in value. and to take the property away from him without any compensation for his twenty years of long and faithful service upon the theory that he acquired the title in trust.
Dissenting: John J The legal effect of the majority The legal effect of the majority opinion is to penalize the defendant for his thrift and prudent business methods. The evidence is conclusive that at all times he acted. and he is denied the fruits of twenty years of his labor in giving it a commercial value. and at all times held it in trust for the use and benefit of his deceased brother and his heirs. Prescription on favor of Marcelino is not effective.
.7|P ag e
Banas testified that Epifanio was present when the contract was made 5. He was a trustee in possession under a continuing and subsisting trust. upon which he spent his own time.
Perez. 1956. usually. Antonio may be allowed to pay a sum of money (P5. whereas those of trustee of an express trust are. fixed and/or limited by law.8|P ag e
135. but of the trustee The amount is excessive. in his aforementioned capacity as such trustee. The services above referred to inured to the benefit. governed by the intention of the trustor or of the parties. Antonio M. withdrew the appeal. the Court of Appeals rendered a decision on June 25. Angela and Antonio. on October 19. if established by contract (Art.500) to the law firm. 1957. however. on May 16. all surnamed Perez Y Tuason Moral of the Story: It is true that some functions of executors or administrators bear a close analogy with those of a trustee. Antonio Araneta Judicial Guardians: Philippine National Bank and Antonio M. In 1958. A trustee may be indemnified out of trust estate for his expenses in rendering and proving his accounts and for costs and counsel fees. L-11788. 1956. in view of Antonio Perez s refusal to reimburse to said estate identical sums received in the form of allowances for the period from April to June. Araneta & Araneta. had rendered services. Antonio Araneta and the lower court. fixed and/or limited by law. Said objection was. Facts of the Case: Two incidents of the trusteeship of the minors Benigno. Although Antonio Perez appealed to the Supreme Court. governed by the intention of the trustor or of the parties.law library 2.
Held: Section 7 of Rule 86 refers only to "executors or administrators" of the estate of deceased persons. not of the trust estate. No. 1957. appealed the decision of the lower court. J. particularly in the field of education. The duties of executors or administrators are.R. overruled by the lower court. through its assistant.are. 1441). Perez3 Beneficiaries: Benigno. to be the better
1. therefore. whereas those of trustee of an express trust . PEREZ V ARANETA CONCEPCION. 1958. P5. 22810-R of the Court of Appeals for a writ of certiorari and mandamus against J. We believe it. however. Antonio Perez instituted CA-G. 1957. y It is true that some functions of executors or administrators bear a close analogy with those of a trustee. The appellee's accounts for April to June. science and social welfare. on appeal taken by appellant. 1958.
Section 7 of Rule 86 of the Rules of Court: When the executor or administrator is an attorney he shall not charge against the estate any professional fees for legal services rendered by him. the action of which was affirmed by this Court in G. Francisco T. in excess of the shares of said minors in the net income for that period. as counsel for the appellee. if established by contract. dismissing said petition. and does not necessarily apply to trustees.500 fixed by the lower court as compensation for such services not excessive. 4 The law firm Araneta & Araneta.: Contentions of Antonio Perez: Trustor/Donor: Not mentioned Trustee/Donees: J. 3. After appropriate proceedings.
. Atty. Antonio Araneta in withholding certain sums from the shares of the minors aforementioned in the net income of the trust estate for July to September. in connection with the following:
rendered to him. The lower court should have required the introduction of evidence on the extent of the services rendered by the aforementioned law firm before making said award. subsequently. YES. Besides.R. the duties of trustees may cover a much wider range than those of executors or administrators of the estate of deceased persons. at a time when a sizeable part of the burden to undertake important and even essential activities in advanced and/or developing communities or states. Antonio in both instances. The approval of his accounts for January to March. which were approved by the lower court on July 13. Moreover. is borne by foundations or other similar organizations based upon the principles of trust. usually. despite Antonio Perez s objection thereto. The duties of executors or administrators are. he. which were objected to by Antonio Perez. The application of Section 7 of Rule 86 to all trusteeships without distinction may dissuade deserving persons from accepting the position of trustee and consequently have a deterrent effect upon the establishment of trusts. in several judicial proceedings. 1957. for services4
3 Lower Court ruled in favor of J. of which he is a member. the latter having sustained the action of J.like that which we have under consideration . Papa. Angela and Antonio Perez Y Tuason are consolidated in this case: Issue #1: WON J. No. the guardian of the person of minor beneficiaries.
that. because J. side from declaring a 33-1/3% stock dividend for its common shares. Enterprise is financially stable and sound based on the statement of accounts of the company for the years 1954 1957. and that 6-½ % and 4% cash dividends were paid in 1955 and 1957. we are not prepared to hold that the lower court has erred in authorizing the payment of said attorney's fees by herein appellee. in his individual capacity. a stockholder of said company. y
The interest of appellees and his children5 in said company is not such as to warrant the charge that the purchase of 118
6 The book value of each of said 118 common shares of stock.
Issue #2: WON the purchase of 118 shares of common stock of PhilippineAmerican Drug Co. respectively.
J.... In the case at bar. whether or not a trustee shall be allowed to pay attorney's fees and charge the same against the trust estate. that the will creating the trust and designating the appellee as trustee explicitly grants him the right to collect for his services such reasonable fees.
Held: Investment neither unwise nor unlawful. that in each case the stand taken by the appellee was upheld by the court. and the trustor and appellant on the other.6 On the issue that purchase of shares of San Miguel Brewery would have been a better investment: Whether an investment is good or not does not depend upon the general. on the one hand. 1955 and 1957 and declared stock dividends in 1954. YES. Shares of stock of the San Miguel Brewery pay higher returns than shares of Philippine-American Drug Co. in the light of the peculiar circumstances obtaining in each case. What is more. Again. there can be little doubt but that the trustor would have sanctioned the payment of the attorney's fees involved in this incident. Antonio holds. In 1954 the Philippine-American Drug Co.000 common shares of stock of the Philippine-American Drug Co. independently of his compensation as a trustee.80. 199 out of 30. which appellee admittedly has in the Philippine-American Drug Co. had paid a cash dividend of 6%. is P202. but which it is not claimed he wields in the San Miguel Brewery Co. one factor that should be taken into account is the degree of influence that the investor may have upon the management of the enterprise concerned.9|P ag e
policy to acknowledge the authority of courts of justice to exercise a sound judgment in determining. Contentions of Antonio Perez: y y y Investment is unwise in that the operation of said company has not proved profitable. Antonio is.
. also.000 preferred shares of stock of the same enterprise. abstract possibility of better investments. purchased by the trustee at P100 each. common stocks for the trust estate amounts to self-dealing by the appellee with himself. had paid cash dividends in 1954. and that it may have been more costly for the trust estate to engage the services of a law firm other than that of Araneta & Araneta. in view of the nature of the relations between the trustor and the trustee. said purchase by the trustee may be considered as an indication that he had displayed in the management of the trust estate the same interest he had in the protection of his own property. at P100 each for the benefit of the trusteeship merits judicial approval. Philippine-American Drug Co. Investment is unlawful in that it is actually an act of self-dealing between the trustee and the beneficiaries of the trust. whereas his children own 270 out of 5. considering that the appellee was merely defending himself in the proceedings that required the services of counsel.
wrote Ang Bansing requesting the latter to surrender the Owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 459. 2601 so that Lot 1846C could be formally transferred to his client but Ang Bansing refused. the land of Ang Bansing was surveyed and designated as Lot 664-B. 1940.10 | P a g e
136. Original Certificate of Title No. "Trusts are either express or implied. the President of the Philippines issued Proclamation No. the MDA filed a complaint against Francisco Ang Bansing before the CFI of Davao City.  June 15-17 and December 15. Stilted formalities are unnecessary. deliver and reconvey to Juan Cruz Yap Chuy and/or his successor-in-interest the title pertaining to the portion of land sold and conveyed by him to Juan Cruz Yap Chuy by virtue of the deed of sale and his affidavit.B. the disputed parcel of land.: FACTS:  It is not disputed that Francisco Ang Bansing was the owner of a big tract of land with an area of about 300.50. 1969. pursuant to Decree No. and sufficiently certain beneficiaries.000 sq. Basically. Lansona as sureties. situated in Barrio Panacan Davao City. 1939. alleging. a cadastral survey was made and Lot 664-B-3 was designated as Lot 1846-C of the Davao Cadastre. Express trusts are created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties. subject to private rights. transferring ownership of certain parcels of land situated in Sasa Davao City. for the reconveyance of the title over Lot 1846-C. HELD: No express trust had been created between Ang Banging and Juan Cruz over Lot 1846-C of the Davao Cadastre. executed a surety bond in favor of the vendee to guarantee the vendor's absolute title over the land sold. WON Francisco Ang Bansing as vendor and the one who worked to secure the title of his entire tract of land which included the portion sold by him. On that same day. OCT No.  After the sale. Bisnar counsel for the Mindanao Development Authority.m. Ascertainable trust res. among others. On March 31. more or less. 745358 issued on July 29. 1783 was issued in the name of Francisco Ang Bansing. Court of Appeals (1982)  February 25. Implied trusts come into being by operation of law. with an area of 61. 1941. Cam and Miguel N. Ang Bansing sold a portion thereof.  Consequently. was designated as Lot 664B-3. 1939. among others. Hector L.347. Psd-1638.  March 31. Juan Cruz sold Lot 1846-C to the Commonwealth of the Philippines for the amount of P6.. Lot 664-B was further subdivided into five (5) lots  The portion sold to Juan Cruz Yap Chuy shortened to Juan Cruz.  December 23. 26 was cancelled pursuant to a Deed of Adjudication and TCTNo. Atty. the following: That I hereby agree to work for the titling of the entire area of my land under my own expenses and the expenses for the titling of the portion sold to me shall be under the expenses of the said Juan Cruz Yap Chuy. 1941. as vendor. now the Southern Philippines Development Administration. 26 was issued in the means of Victoriana Ang Bansing.  Cadastral survey plan was approved by the Director of Lands on July 10. 2.  February 25. Orfelina Ang Bansing and Francisco Ang Bansing as claimants of the land. Juan Cruz. J. to Juan Cruz Yap Chuy acted in the capacity of and/or served as trustee for any and all parties who become successor-in-interest to Juan Cruz Yap Chuy 2. to the Mindanao Development Authority. 1965. WON Ang Bansing was bound and obligated to give. 1939. Competent trustor and trustee.  Lot 1846-C. the following: ISSUE: 1. with an area of about 5 hectares to Juan Cruz Yap Chuy The contract provided. Mindanao Development Authority vs. if any. 1940  March 7. on April 11. was among the parcels of land transferred to the Mindanao Development Authority in said proclamation." It is fundamental in the law of trusts that certain requirements must exist before an express trust will be recognized. 1969.. but nevertheless each of the above
CONCEPCION JR.
.107 square meters. these elements include 1. and C.
Hence. equivocal or indefinite declarations." it is not clear
. As counsel for the herein petitioner has stated. While Ang Bansing had agreed in the deed of sale that he will work for the titling of "the entire area of my land under my own expenses.
3." That no express trust had been agreed upon by Ang Bansing and Juan Cruz is evident from the fact that Juan Cruz. it cannot rest on vague and uncertain evidence or on loose. Nor will the affidavit executed by Ang Bansing on April 23. if called upon so to do. never made any attempt to enforce the alleged trust and require the trustee to transfer the title over Lot 1846-C in his name. Considering that the trust intent has not been expressed with such clarity and definiteness. 1941. Some power of administration other than a mere duty to perform a contract although the contract is for a third-party beneficiary. and. Clear and unequivocal language is necessary to create a trust and mere precatory language and statements of ambiguous nature. may enforce. It must show a desire to pass benefits through the medium of a trust. The above-quoted stipulation. be construed as having established an express trust. and that the court. satisfactory and convincing evidence.
In this case. In case of a declaration of trust. The purpose be an active one to prevent trust from being executed into a legal estate or interest.
4. and not through some related or similar device. Present and complete disposition of the trust property.107 square meters or a little over six (6) hectares. it is fatal to the trusts. Declaration of terms which must be stated with reasonable certainty in order that the trustee may administer. the latter would have asked for the reconveyance of the title to him in view of the surety bond executed by him in favor of the Commonwealth Government wherein he warrants his title over the property. is nothing but a condition that Ang Bansing shall pay the expenses for the registration of his land and for Juan Cruz to shoulder the expenses for the registration of the land sold to him.
5. The conduct of Juan Cruz is inconsistent with a trust and may well have probative effect against a trust. and one that is not in contravention of some prohibition of statute or rule of public policy. It is essential to the creation of an express trust that the settlor presently and unequivocally make a disposition of property and make himself the trustee of the property for the benefit of another. if the parties had agreed that Ang Bansing shall hold the property in trust for Juan Cruz until after the former shall have obtained a certificate of title to the land. therefrom whether said statement refers to the 30-hectare parcel of land or to that portion left to him after the sale. The stipulation does not categorically create an obligation on the part of Ang Bansing to hold the property in trust for Juan Cruz. there is no express trust. A failure on the part of the settlor definitely to describe the subject-matter of the supposed trust or the beneficiaries or object thereof is strong evidence that he intended no trust. The intent to create a trust must be definite and particular.11 | P a g e
elements is required to be established. a trust must be proven by clear. 6. For sure. the supposed beneficiary of the trust. the latter never sought the transfer of the title to Lot 1846-C in his name. if any one of them is missing. however. the trust. Packson. notwithstanding that the enjoyment in the beneficiary will take place in the future. the herein petitioner relies mainly upon the following stipulation in the deed of sale executed by Ang Bansing in favor of Juan Cruz to prove that an express trust had been established with Ang Bansing as the settlor and trustee and Juan Cruz as the cestui que trust or beneficiary: That I hereby agree to work for the titling of the entire area of my land under my own expenses and the expenses for the titling of the portion sold to me shall be under the expenses of said Juan Cruz Yap Chuy. "the only purpose of the Affidavit was to clarify that the area of the land sold by Ang Bansing to Juan Cruz Yap Chuy is not only 5 hectares but 61. Despite numerous transfers of portions of the original 30-hectare parcel of land of Ang Bansing to Juan Cruz and the issuance of certificates of title in the name of Juan Cruz. As the Court stated in the case of De Leon vs. are not sufficient to establish a trust. the declaration must be clear and unequivocal that the owner holds property in trust for the purposes named. no express trust can be deduced from the stipulation aforequoted.
From that date up to April 11. There is also a constructive trust if a person sells a parcel of land and thereafter obtains title to it through fraudulent misrepresentation. as a general rule a trust estate (in an express trust) is exempt from the operation of the statute of limitations. 1969. considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes. clear. if property is acquired through mistake or fraud. upon the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. there is neither promise nor fiduciary relations. as claimed by the herein petitioner. The exception is when the trustee repudiates the trust in which case the trustee may acquire the trust estate by prescription. Here. Such a constructive trust is not a trust in the technical sense and is prescriptible. Thus. The repudiation must be known to the cestui que trust and must be direct. that an express trust had been established. did not take any action therein until after the lapse of 23 years. The rule is now embodied in article 1108(4) of the Civil Code." It does not arise by agreement or intention. courts of equity will impress upon the title a so-called constructive trust in favor of the defrauded party. more than 28 years had passed. only an implied trust may have been impressed upon the title of Ang Banging over Lot 1846-C of the Davao Cadastre since the land in question was registered in his name although the land belonged to another. In implied trusts. the 10-year prescriptive period began on March 31. Thus. arguendo. 26 in the names of Victoriana Ang Bansing Orfelina Ang Bansing and Francisco Ang Banging. when the complaint for reconveyance was filed. Separate Opinion AQUINO. J. applies to an implied trust. A partition proceeding is an appropriate remedy to enforce this right. the action for reconveyance had prescribed. the socalled trustee does not recognize any trust and has no intent to hold the property for the beneficiary. An equitable action for reconveyance is also a proper remedy In any event. That is one of the limitations upon the finality of a decree of title The rule. If a person obtains legal title to property by fraud or concealment. the right of reversion or reconveyance to the State of lands fraudulently registered or not susceptible of private appropriation or acquisition does not prescribe
. the real plaintiff in this case is the Republic of the Philippines and prescription does not run against the State. open and equivocal. it prescribes in 10 years. 1941. not to an express trust So. It is a maxim of great antiquity in English law. but by operation of law. it would appear that the trustee had repudiated the trust and the petitioner herein. One who acquires a Torrens title in his own name to property which he is administering for himself and his brothers and sisters as heirs in common by descent from a common ancestor may be compelled to surrender to each of his co-heirs his appropriate share". Needless to say. The maxim inullum tempus occurrit regi or nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae (lapse of time does not bar the right of the crown or lapse of time does not bar the commonwealth).. Clearly. the alleged beneficiary to the trust. that an action for reconveyance prescribes in ten years. Property held in trust can be recovered by the beneficiary regardless of the lapse of time. The best reason for its existence is the great public policy of preserving public rights and property from damage and loss through the negligence of public officers. even granting. by force of law.12 | P a g e
But. the person obtaining it is. dissenting: The defense of prescription cannot be set up in an action to recover property held in trust for the benefit of another. Prescription in the case of express trusts can be invoked only from the time the trust is repudiated And a trustee who takes a Torrens title in his name for the land held in trust cannot repudiate the trust by relying on the registration.
However. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud. a trust de son tort. Jr. an involuntary trust. Court of Appeals. 123 SCRA 3 FACTS: plaintiff and his brothers and sisters Trinidad Reyes Roa. Concepcion Roa and Zosimo Roa. considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes. or an implied trust. Esperanza Roa de Ongpin. Also the property described I the original agreement was partitioned already to the plaintiff in this case. a trust ex delicto. It is raised by equity to satisfy the demands of justice. were the owners pro-indiviso of a parcel of land located in Tagoloan. The court said that what was created was not an express trust because in that type of trust the intent nto create one needs to be clear even in the absence of particular words. raises a constructive trust. Pablo died so ownership passed to his heirs. the enumeration given does not preclude the existence of other types of trusts that are in line with the general law on trusts. or who in any way against equity and good conscience. As a result of the agreement Pablo withdrew his opposition. by duress or abuse of confidence. otherwise known as a trust ex maleficio. hold and enjoy. ISSUE: WON the agreement created a trust HELD: YES Court cited pertinent AmJur the most releveant being A constructive trust. however no lot was given as replacement nor were they paid. husband of the latter. In order to ensure the issuance of the tittle the siblings entered into an agreement with Pablo (compromise agreement) wherein they would replace the lot with another parcel of land of equivalent size or if the replacement is not to his liking they would pay him 400 pesos.13 | P a g e
137. And in this case there was no use of force or fraud in play. in equity and good conscience. In this case the court resolved the case on the general principles of law on constructive trust which basically rest on equitable considerations in order to satisfy the demands of justice. either has obtained or holds the legal right to property which he ought not. by commission of wrong. 1456. Misamis Oriental. concealment. Pablo claimed that the portion was his. Furthermore it could not be an implied trust because the law states that Art. So basically the court concluded that although this type of scenario may not fall under the types of implied trusts enumerated in the CC. although in business or social relations. They filed for the issuance of title but opposition was made by one Pablo Valdehuesa for a portion of the land. is a trust by operation of law which arises contrary to intention and in invitum. the person obtaining it is. rendering an acquisition or retention of property by one person unconscionable against another. vs. conscience and fair dealing and thus protect the innocent against fraud. by fraud. takes cognizance. or by any form of unconscionable conduct. against one who. morality. by force of law. actual or constructive. It has been broadly ruled that a breach of confidence. ordinarily such a trust arises and will be declared only on wrongful acquisitions or retentions of property of which equity. or questionable means. Roa. in accordance with its fundamental principles and the traditional exercise of its jurisdiction or in accordance with statutory provision.
. a constructive trust does not arise on every moral wrong in acquiring or holding property or on every abuse of confidence in business or other affairs. artifice.
as provided in the above quoted paragraph of the will of the decedent.52 and P81. Antonio Araneta. said proceeds of the sale. Tuason Trustee: J. and not to turn the same over to the beneficiary as net rentals ("rentas netas"). TC: Ruled in favor of trustee J. the issue as to whether or not the minors are entitled to the delivery of said sum of P98. the judicial guardian and father of said minors filed a motion in the trusteeship proceedings alleging that said sum of P98. Los poderos de dicho administrador seran los de un trustee con los poderes mas amplios permitidos por la ley. with the proceeds of the sale. y una mayoria de los mismos acordaren la terminacion de la administracion. Angela and Antonio.88 is a matter dependent exclusively upon the conditions upon which the trust had been established. J. Antonio Araneta Beneficiaries: Benigno. as set forth in said paragraph. valued P900. all surnamed Perez y Tuason. respectively aggregating P98. (The fact that it is treated as profit within the purview of our internal revenue law is not controlling.") leaves no room for doubt about the intent of the testatrix to keep. SC: Affirmed TC judgment. Said sum not income. a rason de una novena parte del caudal hereditario que dejare para cada uno de ellos. Aforesaid sum of P98. con amplios poderes de vender los mismos.418. On September 28. y con suproducto adquirir otros bienes. 1959. Lego asimismo a mis nietos que fueren de mi hija Nieves. otra porcion equivalente a dos novenas partes del caudal hereditario.00 were turned over in 1950 to J. Lego a mi hijo Antonio otra porcion equivalente a dos novenas partes del caudal hereditario. Salvador Araneta). In conformity with this provision of said will.: Trustor: Angela S.42.828. the grandchildren of the decedent Sometime in 1948. Por nietos. rendir trimestralmente. estan sujetos a la manda que se menciona en el parrafo siguiente. "a provision in the instrument to the effect that the beneficiary shall be entitled to the 'income and profits of' of the trust estate is not ordinarily sufficient to indicate an
. 1957 and 1958 at prices exceedingly by P13.828.88 the original appraised value thereof.88 represents profits or income (based on the statements of profits and losses attached to the corresponding income tax returns) of the trusteeship to which said minors are entitled. sin embargo. Y finalmente lego a mis nietos que fueren hijos de mi hija Angela otra porcion equivalente de dos novenas partes del caudal hereditario. y con su producto adquirir otros bienes. which in turn depends upon the latter's intent. Los dos legados. as part of the trust. Perez vs. 4 SCRA 430 (1962) CONCEPCION. P4.) The provision of the will of the decedent explicitly authorizing the trustee to sell the property held in trust and to acquire.828. honorarios razonables. Antonio Araneta.386. Portions of said properties constituting the trust were sold in 1956. Y asimismo. as trustee for the benefit of Benigno. Angela S. other property ("con amplios poderos de vender los mismos.94. a favor de mis mencionados nietos seran administrados por mi albacea. Antonio Araneta (y en defecto de este. su hermano. Angela and Antonio. all surnamed Perez y Tuason.828. pursuant to the above quoted provision of the will. cuenta de su administracion a los legatarious que fueren mayores de edad. Araneta. the present trusteeship proceedings was instituted and certain properties of the estate of the deceased. Tuason died leaving a will. the grandchildren of the decedent referred to in her aforementioned will.88 is not a profit or income which should be turned over to the guardian of said minors according to the provisions of the will. debera hacerles entrega de la participacion que a cada legatario corresponda en las rentas netas de la administracion.023. Dichos tres legados. Pursuant to the general law on trust. debe entederse no solamente a los nietos varones sino tambien a los nietos mujeres. paragraph 4 of which reads: Instituyo como mis unicos herederos a mis mencionados tres hijos. Deberasin embargo. and praying that the trustee be accordingly instructed to deliver said sum. y con derecho a cobrar por su administracion.14 | P a g e
138. y To begin with. La administracion sobre un grupo cesara cuando todos misnietos de dicho grupo llegare a su mayoria de edad. J.
.15 | P a g e
intention that he should be entitled to receive gains arising from the sale of trust property ..." It is well settled that profits realized in the sale of trust properties are part of the capital held in trust to which the beneficiaries are not entitled as income.
. then a written instrument must be used as proof of the trust.
. didn't present any written instrument. clearly understood from the wordings. 21 SCRA 1192 the main idea is that if the trust is expressed. they claimed that the trust was implied hence there was no need to present a written document as parole evidence suffices. Cuaycong vs. Cuaycong. instead. the plaintiffs in this case. meaning.16 | P a g e
139. apparently.
Iloilo cadastre with an area of 5. Canutas were registered owners for more than 40years and had possession of the lot during that period 4.Canuta sold the lot to spouses Patricio Sinaon and Julia Sualibio (granddaughter of Canuta) a. 1968 Sorongon (et al) amended their complaint filed in 1964 that Canuta and the Sinaons were TRUSTEES of the lot in litigation. No 3. (Art 1465. and ordered the Sinaons to convey 4/5 of Lot No 4781 to Sorongon et al. Civil Code). J Facts 1. may be barred by prescription. Civil Code). Sinaon vs.17 | P a g e
140. Trial Court sustained the Trustee theory of Sorongon. prescription would have worked in favor of the Sinaons. 136 SCRA 407 (1985) Aquino. 1923. The supposed trust in this case is a constructive trust arising by operation of law. Note: Even assuming that there was an implied trust.
Held/Ratio: No. 2. 5. The Court said that there was no express trust because Express trusts concerning real property cannot be proven by parol evidence (Art 1443. the Court said that an action for reconveyance of realty.5 hectares. As such the heirs of Domingo s four heirs are entitled to 4/5 share. Citing Suarez vs Tirambulo where it was held that An implied trust cannot be established contrary to the recitals of a Torrens Title. upon vague and inconclusive proof. 4 March 1916 Judge Carlos Imperial adjudicated to Canuta Soblingo Lot No 4781 of the Sta Barbara. It is not a trust in the technical sense. 1. OCT No 6178-A was issued in 1917 to Canuta 3. In Gerona vs de Guzman. Any pretension as to the existence of an implied trust should not be countenanced. based upon a constructive or implied trust resulting from fraud. Sinaons were registered owners for more than 40 years had become indefeasible and possession could not be disturbed. Soroñgon. The prescriptive period is reckoned from the issuance of the title which operates as a constructive notice . Issue: WON Canuta and the Sinaons were mere trustees via an implied or express trust of the lot in litigation? The Court said that title and possession cannot be defeated by oral evidence that can be easily fabricated and contradicted. Sorongon used unreliable oral evidence to prove the trust to which
. Canuta Soblingo on of the 5 children of Domingo Soblingo (the alleged owner of the lot in litigation when it was not yet registered) 2.
The complaint fails to allege that earnest efforts toward a compromise were exerted considering that the suit is between members of the same family. subject to the limitations in Article 2035. and that the legal title thereto was merely placed in her name.R. i.
Lot No. Block No. On August 18. I didn t try to look for the exact provision: No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made. Ltd. ii. Asked the trial court to garnish all the amounts still due and payable to spouses Hugo arising from the sale.Contention no. 1993 | BELLOSILLO 5. CA. 66456 was issued in her name. pursuant to Art. 3. iii.000.
CONTENTION OF SPOUSES HUGO (PETITIONERS): 1.. Emilia O'Laco breached the trust when she sold the land to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila. Spouses Valentin are already barred by laches
ISSUE: 1. EMILIA O'LACO and HUCO LUNA v. The complaint must show that there were efforts towards compromise. 1 a. with assumption of the real estate mortgage constituted thereon. 1960 spouses Valentin Co Cho Chit and O Lay Kia (spouses Valentin) learned from the newspapers that O'Laco sold the same property to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila for P230. she filed a petition for issuance of a new title. 58010 | March 31. thereafter. 1. September 20. An attempt to compromise as well as the inability to succeed is a condition precedent to the filing of a suit between members of the same family. 222 of the New Civil Code8. dismissed the complaint together with the counterclaim. O LAY KIA and CA G. and no trust relation exists between them.. i. O'Laco actually bought the property with her own money ii. Emilia O'Laco and respondent O Lay Kia are half-sisters 2. b. 1943 Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company. 5. Petitioners and respondents appealed.. Rule 16. 4. sold a parcel of land7 with the Deed of Absolute Sale naming O'Laco as vendee. b. hehehe) reversed TC decision. Plan Psu-10038. Transfer Certificate of Title No. April 9. she left the Deed of Absolute Sale and the corresponding title with spouses Valentin merely for safekeeping. Sta. June 22. VALENTIN CO CHO CHIT. WON there was an implied trust . of the Rules of Court. Ltd. 6. MR denied. 1960 spouses Valentin sued spouses Emilia O'Laco and Hugo Luna (spouses Hugo) to recover the purchase price of the land before CFI of Rizal. 1944 the CFI Manila granted her petition. No. but that the same have failed. which was granted on 30 June 1960. situated at Oroquieta St. when O Laco asked for the return of the documents evidencing her ownership. May 17. spouses Valentin told her that these were misplaced or lost. Appealed to SC. Procedural -. or a motion to dismiss could have been filed under Sec. Cruz. a.YES 3. hence. Spouses Valentin: Emilia O'Laco knew that they were the real vendees of the Oroquieta property sold in 1943 by Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company. CFI Rizal. 10.00. May 31.
FACTS: 1. par.YES 2.NO HELD: YES!!!
. WON laches came in . Spouses Hugo:deny the existence of any form of trust relation. WON there was effort on the side of spouses Hugo to settle the controversy . 7.18 | P a g e
141. 1976 finding no trust relation between the parties. 1981 (ipapanganak na si Azy nito. 2.
8 Superseded by the Family Code. (j).
Resulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title determines the equitable title or interest and are presumed always to have been contemplated by the parties. Manila. or by words evincing an intention to create a trust. just before O Laco s marriage to Hugo. Spouses Valentin: The reason why they did not place these properties in their name was that being Chinese nationals at the time of the purchase they did not want to execute the required affidavit to the effect that they were allies of the Japanese. As per O Lay Kia. particularly Arts. Spouses Valentin did not formally amend their complaint. c.e. In order to establish an implied trust in real property by parol evidence. If the defendant permits evidence to be introduced without objection and which supplies the necessary allegations of a defective complaint. duress or abuse of confidence. 1455 and 1456. 1448. Implied trusts are those which. The only possible reason for these documents to be possessed by the spouses Valentin for 17 years after the purchase of the property in 1943 is O Laco only held the property for the former. are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent. 1454. then the evidence is deemed to have the effect of curing the defects of the complaint.
3.1452 and 1453. (ISSUE NO. under similar or identical circumstances. 1450. b. with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his legal title for the benefit of another. the document of sale. i. older brother of Emilia. They were allowed to introduce evidence purporting to show that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made. instead of transferring the title as requested. 2) There is a resulting trust was indeed intended by the parties under Art. Sta.
. ii. (APPLICATION OF NO. But. d. the complaint was deemed accordingly amended to conform to the evidence. the owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title. i. in equity and good conscience. receipt of initial premium of insurance coverage and real estate tax receipts ware all in the possession of respondent spouses which they offered in evidence. O Lay Kia pressed O'Laco for the transfer of the title of the Oroquieta property in the name of spouses Valentin. both coming into being by operation of law.10 i. ii.
2. where the certificate of title was placed in the name of Ambrosio O'Laco. Express trusts concerning immovables or any interest therein cannot be proved by parol evidence. e. or will. This testimony was not objected to by spouses Hugo.19 | P a g e
But plaintiff may be allowed to amend his complaint to correct the defect if the amendment does not actually confer jurisdiction on the court in which the action is filed. It cannot be established upon vague and inconclusive proof. the proof should be as fully convincing as if the acts giving rise to the trust obligation were proven by an authentic document. or which are superinduced on the transaction by operation of law as matters of equity.
c.9 Hence. by fraud. 1448 of the NCC: a. Before buying the property. if the cause of action was originally within that court's jurisdiction. Emilia sold the property to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila. 23 while constructive trusts are illustrated in Arts. 10 Specific examples of resulting trusts may be found in the Civil Code. Implied trusts may be established by oral evidence. obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not. independently of the particular intention of the parties. Express trusts are those which are created by the direct and positive acts of the parties. the reason why these documents of ownership remained with her is that the land in question belonged to her. i. i. to hold. insurance policies. by some writing or deed. 1451. They arise from the nature or circumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person thereby becomes invested
9 That is. They arise contrary to intention against one who. 1449. Implied trusts may either be resulting or constructive trusts. b. i. As stipulated by the parties. 2) Substantial existence of trust relations a. Constructive trusts are created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. Cruz. spouses Valentin purchased another property situated in Kusang-Loob. without being express.. 1. Trust relations between parties may either be express or implied. 1.
the trustee has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui qui trust. e. The TC determined that spouses Valentin had some money with which they could buy the property. thereby modifying previous decisions holding that the prescriptive period was four (4) years. Spouses Valentin even filed an action for reconveyance against Ambrosio when he claimed the Kusang-Loob property as his own. It really looks that there was conspiracy between the siblings to defraud and deprive spouses Valentin of their properties. Ambrosio O'Laco filed a case against the AntiDummy Board. 1. O Lay Kia asked Emilia to have the title to the property already transferred to her and her husband Valentin. a. iii. like him. it is converted into a constructive trust and is subject to prescription. b. Valentin was the Chief Mechanic of the Paniqui Sugar Mills. and not otherwise. there was an implied admission by Ambrosio that his sister Emilia. Correspondingly. Emilia continued to recognize the ownership of spouses Valentin over the Oroquieta property. the rule of imprescriptibility may apply for as long as the trustee has not repudiated the trust. As late as 1959. Emilia failed to convince the Court that she was financially capable of purchasing the property. d. which they won.
4. such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui qui trust. A resulting trust is repudiated if the following requisites concur:
. was merely used as a dummy. 39 while the property in question was bought in 1943. (ISSUE NO. when spouses Valentin learned that Emilia was getting married to Hugo. a. Specifically.
5. Until the sale of the contested property to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila. 1. the evidence thereon is clear and convincing. c. The petitions respectively filed by Emilia and Ambrosio for both properties were both granted on the same day by the CFI of Manila. laches cannot lie against them. Emilia O'Laco actually recognized the trust. (APPLICATION OF NO. i. and." i. however.20 | P a g e
1. 3) In resulting trust. i. b. i. 5) Neither the registration of the property in the name of Emilia O'Laco nor the issuance of a new Torrens title in 1944 in her name in lieu of the alleged loss of the original may be made the basis for the commencement of the prescriptive period. The Court categorically ruled that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten (10) years. 2. or just before she got married. and Emilia assured her that "would be arranged (maaayos na)" after her wedding. because of this. Once the resulting trust is repudiated. ii. Immediately after Emilia sold the Oroquieta property spouses Valentin instituted the present suit for breach of trust. she opened a bank account only in 1946 and likewise began filing income tax returns that same year. In fact. The circumstances by which O'Laco obtained a new title by reason of the alleged loss of the old title then in the possession of spouses Valentin cast serious doubt on the veracity of her ownership.
II. No. valid and binding? Whether or not Centro La Paz which is merely a Chapter of Union Espiritista de Filipinas.  Deed of Sale of two parcels in dispute described under T. more or less. et. 1963 2. Special Services Corporation vs. married to Juliana Roberto. CENTRO reiterated ownership of the properties in question and emphasized that the registered owners thereof had publicly acknowledged their possession of said properties in the concept of trustees.727. President of CENTRO. Centro La Paz. the series of documents executed even as early as 1957. consisting 348 square meters and registered in the names of:* 1. 51837. Inc.T. 1972. has a juridical personality of its own in accordance with the provisions of our laws. Preponderance of evidence CENTRO had established that it was "really and true and lawful owner of the property in dispute. August 8.  July 23. Branch IV. Date of letters are as follows 1. Inc. Mesa
. 1957  Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Joaquina dela Rosa in favor of Alejandro Estudillo.  Title covers 2 parcels of land situated in Sampaloc.
HELD: I. Joaquina de la Rosa. A writ of execution was thereafter issued but which has remained unsatisfied. in respect of the rights. 1963 and 3. long before the filing of the replevin case on December 28. 1973: schedule of the public auction sale of Estudillo's rights and interests in said properties  June 27. February 15. 3.
1. Maximo Victoria. Pedro Paguio and Maximo Victoria of the same property covered by the Deed of Donation.  December 15.  October 10. judgment was rendered in favor of petitioner Special Services Corporation by the CFI. widow. married to Amor Jose and 4. 2. CENTRO submitted a third party claim to the Sheriff of Manila likewise averring exclusive ownership of the properties in question. 2. 1961 and October 2. al* FACTS:  The Union Espiritista Cristiana de Filipinas. interest and participation of Alejandro Estudillo. Inc. all Chapter members. in an action for Replevin with Sum of Money. November 29. Alejandro Estudillo filed a "Motion to Dissolve and/or Cancel the Notice of Levy" alleging that he and the other registered owners indicated on the title merely held in trust the properties and improvements thereon in favor of Centro La Paz (Samahang Espiritista Sa Lunduyang La Paz) a Chapter of Union Espiritista Cristiana de Filipinas. against one Alejandro Estudillo in the amount of P94.C. Manila. ISSUE/s: I.
III. 1971 praying for the revocation of tax assessments on said properties as the same. attest to plaintiff's ownership of the property in question. the Sheriff of Manila caused the annotation of a notice of levy on TCT No.
 The Deed of Donation dated March 13. 1966  July 21. 1971. married to Primitiva Victoria. WON Estudillo is merely the trustee of Centro La Paz? WON the Acknowledgements of registered owners not being annotated on TCT No. 1973. 1973. Manila. 121 SCRA 748 Trustor: Centro La Paz Trustee: Alejandro Estudillo. Alejandro Estudillo.21 | P a g e
142.52. and that the persons registered therein as its owners are merely trustees of the plaintiff. 51837 executed by Sta. long before the issue of whether Alejandro Estudillo really has an interest and/or participation in the property in dispute. Pedro Paguio. 51837 is conclusive of all matters.  Estudillo further alleged that CENTRO's ownership was also evidenced by letters sent to the City Assessor by him and Crispulo Romero. is a semi-religious and charitable organization. as evidenced by "Acknowledgments" executed by them on October 20. 1972. one of the registered owners indicated in said title. were used for religious purposes..
In the same manner that the real property.22 | P a g e
Realty. are merely trustees of the plaintiff. Evident from the record that although it was CENTRO that was actively prosecuting the case. and thus possessed of a juridical personality to sue and be sued. The absence of
. (SSC) as the successful buyer. cannot be taken against CENTRO inasmuch as. said registration. Inc. being owned by a religious organization and.C. Pedro Q. Sumilang Paguio and Filipina Paguio (co-registered owner of Estudillo) likewise declaring that their possession of the said property is merely that of trustees and not as owners. Deed of Acknowledgment executed on October 22. It is an organization that is duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Follow-up letters addressed to the City Assessor of Manila.1963 and May 29. 1961 also executed by Estudillo de la Rosa and Victoria acknowledging that the property described under the aforementioned T.T. December 29. SSC could not have been considered a purchaser for value and in good faith at said sale since it had knowledge of CENTRO's claim. dated February 15. indubitably point to one and inescapable conclusion that the plaintiff is really the true and lawful owner of the property in dispute and that persons registered therein as its owners. Petitions for revocation of tax assessments Nos. which is the real party in interest and is itself named in the Complaint. can be proven to be conjugal property with his wife. together with the improvements thereon are being possessed by them only as trustees.
II. Joaquina dela Rosa. hold the properties in trust for CENTRO by virtue of the indubitable documents executed even before the institution of suit. the trust was not registered in accordance with section 65 of Act 496 (the former Land Registration Law).
As found by both the Trial Court and Appellate Court. 3187 and 3188 Petition to exempt said parcels from taxation. Paguio and Maximo Victoria Deed of Acknowledgment dated October 30. all of whom are members of CENTRO. if the public auction sale had actually been held. heirs of dela Rosa and Paguio of the two parcels in favor of Centro La Paz.. III. in substance. however. 1963. widow of Paguio and the latter's daughters. which knowledge was equivalent to registration of the several "Acknowledgments" in the Registry of Deeds. Inc. registered solely in the name of a husband. 1962 respectively Deed of Sale executed by Estudillo. 1971. particularly when the latter had filed a third-party-claim with the Sheriff of Manila before the scheduled auction sale. the Union Espiritista Cristiana de Filipinas. with Special Service Corp. jointly by Amor Jose. 51837. Admittedly. in favor of Alejandro Estudillo. the evidence sufficiently establishes that the registered owners of the parcels of land covered by TCT 51837. it was representing the mother organization. the fact of registration in the name of Alejandro Estudillo and others does not bar evidence to show that the registered owners hold the properties in trust for CENTRO. No.
There was also agreement that he would use the vehicle as he paid for the same. although no specific provision could be cited to apply to the parties herein. he was leaving for the US and petitioner is the only Filipino left in the Philippines. that he bought the vehicle from isuzu balintawak. All the abovementioned allegations of private respondent has been corroborated by witnesses. As owner thereof. but due to the policy to settle in one action all the conflicting claims of the parties to the possession of the property in controversy. Tan Ban Yong.23 | P a g e
143. which derives its strength from the confidence one reposes on another especially between brothers. unlawfully took it away from him. When the family business needed a vehicle. Chiao claims that the van is registered under his name. and utilization of the van until his older brother. the court said that respondent should have filed for recovery of possession on the basis of ownership. Chiao Liong Tan vs. private respondent allowed the registration under the name of petitioner. The trial court hence ruled in favor of the private respondent and the CA affirmed this decision. After a month. enjoyment. and that his brother later refused to return the vehicle and appropriated the same for himself. that he sent his brother to pay for the van and the receipt was issued in his name because it was his money that was used to pay for the vehicle. On the side issue of replevin.
. does not lose that character simply because of what appears in a legal document. A trust. petitioner says he has been in possession. ISSUE: WON there was an Implied trust created when the Van was registered under petitioners name but was paid for and really owned by respondent HELD: YES The New Civil Code recognizes cases of implied trust other than those enumerated therein. According to respondent CLT Industries is the family business and it was under the name of petitioner since at the that time. 228 SCRA 75 FACTS: Chiao Long Tan claims to be the owner of a 1976 Isuzu Elf van. he paid for the van by getting a loan from a friend. he asked petitioner to look for a vehicle and gave him money as downpayment for an Isuzu Elf van. As much as the receipt was placed in the name of petitioner. Thus. The principle that a trustee who puts a certificate of registration in his name cannot repudiate the trust by relying on the registration is one of the well-known limitations upon a title. that he allowed his brother to use the vehicle because the latter was working for the company. the question of ownership may be resolved in the same proceeding. Court of Appeals. it is undeniable that an implied trust was created when the certificate of registration of the motor vehicle was placed in the name of the petitioner although the price thereof was not paid by him but by private respondent.
uninterrupted adverse and public possession of the property in question. The validity of the patent as a whole was not assailed. 4. the homestead owner was prohibited from transferring his rights. 3. since thirteen years had elapsed from the issuance of the homestead patent before the action was filed. Homena and Juaneza are not the proper party to institute the action to annul the homestead patent. which certified the case to SC. The deed of sale executed on June 15. b. The defense of prescription cannot be set up in an action to recover property held in trust by a person for another. Homena and Juaneza s opposition to the motion to dismiss: a. DIMAS CASA AND MARIA CASTOR and the REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF COTABATO G. Casa and Castro s motion to dismiss: a. a. b. Homena and Juaneza sought to annul the original certificate of title in favor of Casa and Castor pursuant to a Homestead Patent on the ground that said patent was obtained fraudulently by stating that the lot was not claimed and occupied by another person. continuous. Under the Public Land Act. 1952 or prior to the approval of the application and issuance of the homestead patent was null and void and inoperative to convey the land in question. Homena and Juaneza filed a case against Casa and Castor for unlawful dispossession disturbing the former s peaceful. 3. 1988 | YAP FACTS: 1. No. SABAS H. The issue of prescription or laches becomes irrelevant in a case such as this. Because of the fraud in registration. HOMENA and ILUMINADA JUANEZA v. b. Appealed to CA. However. Homena and Juaneza allege than on June 15. where plaintiffs clearly have no cause of action. c.24 | P a g e
144. they never got the title from Casa and Castro. L-32749 | January 22.
ISSUE: WON there was an implied trust among the parties HELD: NO!!!! RATIO: 1. Hence. 1967.
. the agreement is clearly illegal and void ab initio.R. action was started before that time elapsed. it is intended to circumvent and violate the law. 2. 2. TC dismissed the case. open. it needs 4 years to be prescribed. As parties to a void contract. complaint is barred by prescription. and c. MR denied. they purchased from Casa and Castro 2 hectares of land with the agreement that the deed of sale would be given to the former after the 5-year prohibitive period provided in the Homestead Patent Law. only with respect to the 2 hectares that Casa and Castro were able to register. the Homena and Juaneza have no rights which they can enforce and the court cannot lend itself to its enforcement. which was at that time still public land. Homena and Juaneza cannot invoke the doctrine of implied trust based on an illegal contract.
survived by the present defendants. although from 1926. who are his spouse Luisa Romero and several children. 1453 thereof. and thereafter continued payment of the remaining installments until the whole purchase price had been fully satisfied. Lucas had been giving part of the rents to Fortunata Bautista. An implied trust arises where a person purchases land with his own money and takes a conveyance thereof in the name of another. J. the subsequent payments made by Emilio Candelaria until fully paid were made in the name of Lucas Candelaria. the action has already prescribed. it results because of equity and arises by implication or operation of law. the property is held on a resulting trust in favor of the one furnishing the consideration for the transfer.: Trustee: Lucas Candelaria (land was registered under his name) Beneficiaries: Emilio Candelaria (actually paid for said land) Emilio Candelaria and his brother Lucas Candelaria bought each a lot in the Solokan Subdivision on installment basis. Romero. In the present case. 1942. 9584 covering the land in question had been issued to Lucas Candelaria way-back in 1918 or 38 years before the filing of the complaint. y Heirs of Emilio filed complaint for reconveyance of real property with damages. (1960) GUTIERREZ DAVID. This rule. 1936. 109 Phil. but faced with the inability of meeting the subsequent installments because of sickness which caused him to be bedridden. but from the facts and circumstances. Lucas' possession of the lot was merely tolerated by Emilio and his heirs. who then reimbursed him the amount he had already paid. with the understanding that the necessary documents of transfer will be made later. 500. having refused to reconvey it to plaintiff despite repeated demands. the second wife of Emilio." From this allegation. Lucas had been collecting all its rents for his own use as financial aid by Emilio to him as a brother in view of the fact that he was bedridden without any means of livelihood and with several children to support. the case is remanded for further proceedings to allow them to present proof in support of their claim. not express trust. Heirs of Candelaria vs. Lucas held the title to said lot merely in trust for Emilio and that this fact was acknowledged not only by him but also by the defendants (Lucas heirs) on several occasions. he sold his interest to his brother Emilio. In 1918 a transfer certificate of title for said lot was issued by the register of deeds of Manila in the name of "Lucas Candelaria married to Luisa Romero".
SC: Implied trust. the reason that the transaction being brother to brother. in accordance with the Emilio's wishes. The trust which results under such circumstances does not arise from contract or agreement of the parties. As to whether action is barred by lapse of time. the complaint expressly alleges that "although Lucas Candelaria had no more interest over the lot. Lucas died in August. y Where property is taken by a person under an agreement to hold it for.25 | P a g e
145. or convey it to another or the grantor. Said payments done by Emilio were however made in the name of Lucas. which is unenforceable without any writing. a resulting or implied trust arises in favor of the person for whose benefit the property was intended. unless a different intention or understanding appears. the lower court held that an express and not an implied trust was created as may be gleaned from the facts alleged in the complaint. it may naturally be presumed
. that is to say. TC: Dismissed complaint on the ground that cause of action is unenforceable under the NCC and that the action has already prescribed. is founded upon equity. and that since Transfer Certificate of Title No. and that said defendants are still in possession of the lot. when Emilio was confined at the Culion Leper Colony up to his death on February 5. Lucas paid the first two installments corresponding to his lot. with the understanding that the necessary documents of transfer will be made later. it is apparent that Emilio Candelaria who furnished the consideration intended to obtain a beneficial interest in the property in question. which has been incorporated in the new Civil Code in Art. y In the order granting the motion to dismiss. Having supplied the purchase money. In such a case.
or convey it to the grantor.
. The rule in such trusts is that laches constitutes a bar to actions to enforce the trust. Constructive or implied trusts may. the plaintiff's predecessor in interest. unless there is a concealment of the facts giving rise to the trust. be barred by lapse of time. however. Indeed. and repudiation is not required. it is evident from the above-quoted allegation in the complaint that the property in question was acquired by Lucas Candelaria under circumstances which show it was conveyed to him on the faith of his intention to hold it for. of course. Continuous recognition of a resulting trust.26 | P a g e
that he intended the purchase for his own benefit. precludes any defense of laches in a suit to declare and enforce the trust.
More From This UserUribe NotesBa 221 Williamson and OliverDupont TreeTrust Digests
Trust Digests by Azy Ignacio1.9K viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
Relatedo laco v co cho chitby Carl Reyes De Guzmancase digestby Amor5678AgPart 925 - Trust Digestby cezar delailaniDe Leon Et Al vs Molo Peckksonby Zniv SavsAgency and Partnership Digests #5by Janz SerranoDiolosa v. CAby d2015memberAgency Written Digestby Paolo AdalemTrust Cases Digestby Jasmine Rey QuintoAgency Digests - Dioby Kenneth SyAgency and Partnership Digests #1by Janz Serrano120. Coleongco vs. Claparols Digestby Lilibeth Davis GabuteroPartnership and Agency Digests for Atty. Cochingyanby Eman SantosAGENCY_2D '13 Class Digest_Completeby Jason CertezaAgency Digestsby Mae Grace June NillamaDomingo vs. Domingoby shinjha73Araneta vs. Perezby Ray Anthony RilveriaFor Digest Negoby Nick AranillaAgency Case Doctrinesby Calypso239576885 Villa vs Garcia Bosquelulzby Julian Paul CachoTrusts Completeby Teri MarceloSison v Mcquaid Digestby Aya TumandaPartnership Cases Digestedby gretchengeraldeRamnani vs Court of Appealsby Carlo TalatalaCLV - Law on Trustsby Bless CarpenaAgency and Partnership Digests #4by Janz SerranoPartnership Digestsby yoichi18Agency and Partnership Digests #8by Janz Serranode Leon vs. Molo-Pecksonby Lilibeth Davis GabuteroSimilar to Trust Digestso laco v co cho chitcase digestAgPart 925 - Trust DigestDe Leon Et Al vs Molo PeckksonAgency and Partnership Digests #5Diolosa v. CAAgency Written DigestTrust Cases DigestAgency Digests - DioAgency and Partnership Digests #1120. Coleongco vs. Claparols DigestPartnership and Agency Digests for Atty. CochingyanAGENCY_2D '13 Class Digest_CompleteAgency DigestsDomingo vs. DomingoAraneta vs. PerezFor Digest NegoAgency Case Doctrines239576885 Villa vs Garcia BosquelulzTrusts CompleteSison v Mcquaid DigestPartnership Cases DigestedRamnani vs Court of AppealsCLV - Law on TrustsAgency and Partnership Digests #4Partnership DigestsAgency and Partnership Digests #8de Leon vs. Molo-PecksonAurbach vs sanitary wares digest.docxAgency DigestTrust Digests