You are on page 1of 26

1|Page

131. Salao vs. Salao, 70 SCRA 65

2|Page
132. RESURRECCION DE LEON, ET AL. vs. EMILIANA MOLOPECKSON, ET AL. (1962) BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: Trustor/Donor: Mariano Molo y Legaspi and Juana Juan (their foster parents) Trustee/Donees: Emiliana Molo-Peckson and Pilar Perez Nable Beneficiaries: Resurreccion de Leon, et al. Moral of the Story: A declaration of trust has been defined as an act by which a person acknowledges that the property, title to which he holds, is held by him for the use of another. And in the absence of any reservation of the power to revoke a voluntary trust, the trust is irrevocable without the consent of the beneficiary Facts of the Case: On January 24, 1941, Mariano Molo y Legaspi died leaving a will wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to his wife, Juana Juan. On May 11, 1948, Juana Juan in turn executed a will naming therein many devisees and legatees, one of whom is Guillermo San Rafael, mother of the plaintiffs de Leon, et al. and of the defendant Pilar. On June 7, 1948, however, Juana Juan executed a donation inter vivos in favor of Emiliana and Pilar almost all of her entire property leaving only about P16,000.00 worth of property for the devisees mentioned in the will. Among the properties conveyed to Emiliana and Pilar are the ten parcels of land subject of the present action. Juana Juan died on May 28, 1950. On December 5, 1950, Emiliana and Pilar executed a document which they called "Mutual Agreement"1 wherein the parties mutually agreed to sell ten
1

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” creates an express trust in favor of plaintiff-appelees.  The ―Mutual Agreement‖ represents a recognition of pre -existing trust or a declaration of an express trust impressed on the ten
(b) To RESURRECCION DE LEON, the remaining Five (5) Lots. That this agreement is made in conformity with the verbal wish of the late Don Mariano Molo y Legaspi and the late Dona Juana Francisco Juan y Molo. These obligations were repeatedly told to Emiliana Molo Peckson, before their death and that same should be fulfilled after their death.

Pertinent Portions of the ―Mutual Agreement‖
2

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 — and allocated as follows: (a) To JUSTA DE LEON Five (5) Lots.

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.

Moreover. 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  Appellants contend that the lower court erred in applying the provisions of the new Civil Code on trust. for as trustees it is their duty to deliver the properties to thecestui que trust free from all liens and encumbrances. But the Civil Code of 1889 contains no specific provisions on trust as does the new Civil Code. the acknowledgement appended to the document they subscribed states that it was "their own free act and voluntary deed. There is nobody who could cajole them to execute it. 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. 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. A declaration of trust has been defined as an act by which a person acknowledges that the property. should govern the herein trust under the provisions of Article 2253 of the new Civil code. title to which he holds. 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. This is correct. Obiter: On the Validity of the “Mutual Agreement”  Mutual Agreement was executed by appellants on December 5.  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. It cannot be revoked by the creator alone. 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. that the alleged declaration of trust was revoked. as appellants contend. nor is there any force that could coerce them to make the declaration therein expressed. therefore. The Civil Code of 1889 and previous laws and authorities on the matter.  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. therefore. It is. although the instrument recognizing and declaring such trust was executed on December 5. Here. nor by the trustee. 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. but the attempted revocation did not have any legal effect. The express trust was constituted during the lifetime of the predecessor-ininterest of appellants. after the effectivity of said Code.  . is held by him for the use of another. 1950. reasonable to presume that that document represents the real wish of appellants' predecessors-ininterest. Juana Juan. for the right creating or declaring a trust need not be contemporaneous or inter-parties. Neither is it necessary that the beneficiary should consent to the creation of the trust." 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. and having been revoked it cannot be accepted. Neither does the Code of Civil Procedure of Appellants should free said lands from all liens and encumbrances. 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.     Appellants had no right to revoke the trust without the consent of the cestui que trust  It is true. 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. that is. 1950. there is no such reservation.3|Page parcels of land in question. In fact. 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.

. does not mean that the juridical institution of trust was then unknown in this jurisdiction. This silence.4|Page 1901 for the same merely provides for the proceeding to be followed relative to trusts and trustees (Chapter XVIII). 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. 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. however.

46 Phil. Government vs. Abadilla. 642 .5|Page 133.

of both parties. 2. Cristobal vs. (j) In order that the property of Epifanio Gomez may be returned. the property should be returned to Epifanio’s legitimate children. Telesfora. redeemable in 5 years. c. However. wife of Epifanio Gomez. Don Marcelino Gomez and Doña Telesfora Gomez. Banas consented to such on 10 September 1909.500 3. with its interest and other incidental expenses. Epifanio remained in possession of the property but in the character of a lessee 4. the successors of Epifanio are entitled to demand fulfilment of the trust. namely. 10. 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. (i) As soon as the capital employed. that is to say. Marcelino will act as the manager. Gomez. the same obligation devolves on his heirs). b.00 to be used to repurchase the property in the name of Marcelino and Telesfora. (h) That all the income. and sister. The so-called partnership between Marcelino and Telesfora created a TRUST for the express purpose of securing the property of Epifanio. Banas required him to execute a contract of sale with pacto de retro to secure the debt. a kinsman. and her children to recover from Marcelino Gomez (brother of Epifanio) two parcels of land located in the sitio of Japay. 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. 2. and that since the purpose had been accomplished. Marcelino claimed that the money used by him to redeem the property was his own. or one of them. Since Marcelino is now the lone ―debtor‖ . would make themselves responsible for the loan. That under Art 1257 of the Civil Code. This was executed also on 10 Sept 1909. for assistance. shall have been covered. 7.000. Epifanio had no means to repurchase applied to Bibiano Banas. with the direct intervention. 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. Marcelino. 11. 8.6|Page 134. Property was not redeemed in 5years. J This action was instituted in the CFI of Cavite by Paulina Cristobal. the Court pointed out that contract must bind both contracting parties. 1. said properties shall be returned to our brother Epifanio Gomez or to his legitimate children. 9. with its corresponding interest and other incidental expenses. its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them. Property in question belonged to Epifanio. (1256a)) . for the sum of Php2. However. 6. 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. Bibiano agreed on the condition that Epifanio’s brother. Telesfora conveyed her interest and share to Marcelino to free herself from the responsibility she assumed to Banas. however. 1308. Facts: 1. Among the provisions in the partnership agreement: a. Banas eventually advanced Php7. Don Marcelino Gomez and Doña Telesfora Gomez. 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. (NCC Art. Marcelino and Telesfora created a ―private partnership in participation‖ for the purpose of redeeming the property. But Yangco after many years conceded to the vendor the privilege of repurchasing 5. and produce of the aforesaid property of Epifanio Gomez shall be applied exclusively to the amortization of the capital employed by the two parties. it is made essential that he shall manifest good behavior in the opinion of Don Marcelino Gomez and Doña Telesfora Gomez jointly. The 3. 13 Dec 1891 – Epifanio sold the property under contract of sale with pacto de retro to Luis Yangco. rent. 4. 50 Phil. 810 (1927) Street.

Because Marcelino was not really holding adversely under a claim of title exclusive of any other right and adverse to all other claimants. He was a trustee in possession under a continuing and subsisting trust. Revocation due to the ―behavior‖ of Epifanio should have been when he was still alive. and improved the property. Prescription on favor of Marcelino is not effective. There is no evidence that the defendant acted as trustee or that he ever recognized a 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. 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. Because he did that and the property now has increased in value. his own money. upon which he spent his own time. dealt with and treated the property as his own. . 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. 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. 6. so as to give it a commercial value.7|Page Banas testified that Epifanio was present when the contract was made 5. it is taken away from him without any compensation for his services. The evidence is conclusive that at all times he acted.

Francisco T. usually. YES. the latter having sustained the action of J. The services above referred to inured to the benefit. 1441). through its assistant.8|Page 135. After appropriate proceedings. the guardian of the person of minor beneficiaries. as counsel for the appellee. No. 1957. fixed and/or limited by law. Besides. the Court of Appeals rendered a decision on June 25. science and social welfare. Moreover. in excess of the shares of said minors in the net income for that period. Angela and Antonio.  It is true that some functions of executors or administrators bear a close analogy with those of a trustee. 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. and does not necessarily apply to trustees.  . whereas those of trustee of an express trust .R. therefore. Araneta & Araneta. appealed the decision of the lower court. A trustee may be indemnified out of trust estate for his expenses in rendering and proving his accounts and for costs and counsel fees. withdrew the appeal. 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. Antonio may be allowed to pay a sum of money (P5. Contentions of Antonio Perez:     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. dismissing said petition. The duties of executors or administrators are. 1958. No. the duties of trustees may cover a much wider range than those of executors or administrators of the estate of deceased persons. L-11788. Although Antonio Perez appealed to the Supreme Court. 1956. despite Antonio Perez’s objection thereto. In 1958. in his aforementioned capacity as such trustee. for services 4 3 rendered to him. Antonio Araneta Judicial Guardians: Philippine National Bank and Antonio M. whereas those of trustee of an express trust are. 3. Perez3 Beneficiaries: Benigno.law library 2. in connection with the following: 1.are. The duties of executors or administrators are. Said objection was.500) to the law firm. 1957. Atty. 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. however. usually. J. the action of which was affirmed by this Court in G. Perez. PEREZ V ARANETA CONCEPCION. We believe it.like that which we have under consideration . Facts of the Case: Two incidents of the trusteeship of the minors Benigno. Held: Section 7 of Rule 86 refers only to "executors or administrators" of the estate of deceased persons. P5. 22810-R of the Court of Appeals for a writ of certiorari and mandamus against J. however. fixed and/or limited by law. 1956. Antonio in both instances. not of the trust estate. subsequently. which were approved by the lower court on July 13. on October 19. to be the better Lower Court ruled in favor of J. Angela and Antonio Perez Y Tuason are consolidated in this case: Issue #1: WON J. but of the trustee The amount is excessive. 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. overruled by the lower court. if established by contract (Art. Antonio Araneta and the lower court. governed by the intention of the trustor or of the parties. 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.500 fixed by the lower court as compensation for such services not excessive. governed by the intention of the trustor or of the parties. particularly in the field of education. in several judicial proceedings.: Trustor/Donor: Not mentioned Trustee/Donees: J. 1957. The appellee's accounts for April to June. of which he is a member. if established by contract. Antonio M. 1957. 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. on May 16. is borne by foundations or other similar organizations based upon the principles of trust. Papa.R. he. on appeal taken by appellant. 1958. The approval of his accounts for January to March. Antonio Perez instituted CA-G. had rendered services. 4 The law firm Araneta & Araneta.

purchased by the trustee at P100 each. that in each case the stand taken by the appellee was upheld by the court. in view of the nature of the relations between the trustor and the trustee. which appellee admittedly has in the Philippine-American Drug Co. 199 out of 30. side from declaring a 33-1/3% stock dividend for its common shares. that. considering that the appellee was merely defending himself in the proceedings that required the services of counsel. YES.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. there can be little doubt but that the trustor would have sanctioned the payment of the attorney's fees involved in this incident. also.     Issue #2: WON the purchase of 118 shares of common stock of PhilippineAmerican Drug Co.000 preferred shares of stock of the same enterprise. is P202.. 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. respectively. Enterprise is financially stable and sound based on the statement of accounts of the company for the years 1954 – 1957. common stocks for the trust estate amounts to self-dealing by the appellee with himself. on the one hand. whereas his children own 270 out of 5. Again. and that 6-½ % and 4% cash dividends were paid in 1955 and 1957. In the case at bar. in the light of the peculiar circumstances obtaining in each case. independently of his compensation as a trustee.. had paid a cash dividend of 6%. Contentions of Antonio Perez:    Investment is unwise in that the operation of said company has not proved profitable. Antonio holds. . Philippine-American Drug Co.000 common shares of stock of the Philippine-American Drug Co. whether or not a trustee shall be allowed to pay attorney's fees and charge the same against the trust estate. in his individual capacity. What is more. a stockholder of said company. 1955 and 1957 and declared stock dividends in 1954.80. The book value of each of said 118 common shares of stock. 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.9|Page policy to acknowledge the authority of courts of justice to exercise a sound judgment in determining. and the trustor and appellant on the other. Held: Investment neither unwise nor unlawful. Antonio is.  5 The interest of appellees and his children5 in said company is not such as to warrant the charge that the purchase of 118 6 J. had paid cash dividends in 1954. 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. we are not prepared to hold that the lower court has erred in authorizing the payment of said attorney's fees by herein appellee. abstract possibility of better investments.. In 1954 the 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. because J. Shares of stock of the San Miguel Brewery pay higher returns than shares of Philippine-American Drug Co. but which it is not claimed he wields in the San Miguel Brewery Co. 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.

26 was issued in the means of Victoriana Ang Bansing. 2601 so that Lot 1846C could be formally transferred to his client but Ang Bansing refused. CONCEPCION JR. 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. 1939.  Cadastral survey plan was approved by the Director of Lands on July 10. the President of the Philippines issued Proclamation No. 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.  February 25.  Consequently.000 sq. 1969. now the Southern Philippines Development Administration. 1969. among others. WON Ang Bansing was bound and obligated to give. Atty. Express trusts are created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties. 1965. wrote Ang Bansing requesting the latter to surrender the Owner's duplicate copy of TCT No.10 | P a g e 136. Bisnar counsel for the Mindanao Development Authority. for the reconveyance of the title over Lot 1846-C. with an area of about 5 hectares to Juan Cruz Yap Chuy The contract provided. On March 31.  March 31. and sufficiently certain beneficiaries. the following: ISSUE: 1.  June 15-17 and December 15. 1783 was issued in the name of Francisco Ang Bansing. Lot 664-B was further subdivided into five (5) lots  The portion sold to Juan Cruz Yap Chuy shortened to Juan Cruz.  After the sale.50.m. but nevertheless each of the above .347. these elements include 1. Juan Cruz. Mindanao Development Authority vs. OCT No. to Juan Cruz Yap Chuy acted in the capacity 2. 1940. the disputed parcel of land. among others. if any. Cam and Miguel N. 1941. on April 11.. 1940  March 7. Hector L. transferring ownership of certain parcels of land situated in Sasa Davao City.107 square meters. the MDA filed a complaint against Francisco Ang Bansing before the CFI of Davao City. Orfelina Ang Bansing and Francisco Ang Bansing as claimants of the land. J.  Lot 1846-C. 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. to the Mindanao Development Authority. Stilted formalities are unnecessary. as vendor. the land of Ang Bansing was surveyed and designated as Lot 664-B. Ang Bansing sold a portion thereof. Juan Cruz sold Lot 1846-C to the Commonwealth of the Philippines for the amount of P6. Ascertainable trust res. 26 was cancelled pursuant to a Deed of Adjudication and TCTNo. 745358 issued on July 29. 459. was among the parcels of land transferred to the Mindanao Development Authority in said proclamation. pursuant to Decree No. a cadastral survey was made and Lot 664-B-3 was designated as Lot 1846-C of the Davao Cadastre. Basically. more or less.  December 23. 2.B. of and/or served as trustee for any and all parties who become successor-in-interest to Juan Cruz Yap Chuy "Trusts are either express or implied. situated in Barrio Panacan Davao City.: FACTS:  It is not disputed that Francisco Ang Bansing was the owner of a big tract of land with an area of about 300. was designated as Lot 664B-3.." It is fundamental in the law of trusts that certain requirements must exist before an express trust will be recognized. alleging. and C. 1939. executed a surety bond in favor of the vendee to guarantee the vendor's absolute title over the land sold. Court of Appeals (1982)  February 25. 1939. Lansona as sureties. Implied trusts come into being by operation of law. subject to private rights. Original Certificate of Title No. Psd-1638. On that same day. 1941. HELD: No express trust had been created between Ang Banging and Juan Cruz over Lot 1846-C of the Davao Cadastre. with an area of 61. Competent trustor and trustee.

if any one of them is missing. The purpose be an active one to prevent trust from being executed into a legal estate or interest. In case of a declaration of trust. Packson. 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. and not through some related or similar device. 1941. notwithstanding that the enjoyment in the beneficiary will take place in the future." That no express trust had been agreed upon by Ang Bansing and Juan Cruz is evident from the fact that Juan Cruz." it is not clear a trust must be proven by clear. Some power of administration other than a mere duty to perform a contract although the contract is for a third-party beneficiary. and that the court. The stipulation does not categorically create an obligation on the part of Ang Bansing to hold the property in trust for Juan Cruz. satisfactory and convincing evidence. if called upon so to do. 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. "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. it cannot rest on vague and uncertain evidence or on loose. Hence. never made any attempt to enforce the alleged trust and require the trustee to transfer the title over Lot 1846-C in his name. and. 5. The conduct of Juan Cruz is inconsistent with a trust and may well have probative effect against a trust. be construed as having established an 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. 6. and one that is not in contravention of some prohibition of statute or rule of public policy. the trust. 4. however. Nor will the affidavit executed by Ang Bansing on April 23. 3.107 square meters or a little over six (6) hectares. 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. . the declaration must be clear and unequivocal that the owner holds property in trust for the purposes named. equivocal or indefinite declarations. there is no express trust. may enforce. it is fatal to the trusts. Clear and unequivocal language is necessary to create a trust and mere precatory language and statements of ambiguous nature. the latter never sought the transfer of the title to Lot 1846-C in his name. In this case. The intent to create a trust must be definite and particular. 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. the supposed beneficiary of the trust. As the Court stated in the case of De Leon vs.11 | P a g e elements is required to be established. no express trust can be deduced from the stipulation aforequoted. 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. 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. 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. are not sufficient to establish a trust. As counsel for the herein petitioner has stated. It must show a desire to pass benefits through the medium of a trust. The above-quoted stipulation. For sure. therefrom whether said statement refers to the 30-hectare parcel of land or to that portion left to him after the sale. Considering that the trust intent has not been expressed with such clarity and definiteness. Declaration of terms which must be stated with reasonable certainty in order that the trustee may administer. Present and complete disposition of the trust property.

In implied trusts. Needless to say. An equitable action for reconveyance is also a proper remedy In any event. There is also a constructive trust if a person sells a parcel of land and thereafter obtains title to it through fraudulent misrepresentation. arguendo. If a person obtains legal title to property by fraud or concealment. Here.12 | P a g e But. The exception is when the trustee repudiates the trust in which case the trustee may acquire the trust estate by prescription. the right of reversion or reconveyance to the State of lands fraudulently registered or not susceptible of private appropriation or acquisition does not prescribe . as claimed by the herein petitioner. clear. The rule is now embodied in article 1108(4) of the Civil Code. It is a maxim of great antiquity in English law. 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). when the complaint for reconveyance was filed. the alleged beneficiary to the trust. the socalled trustee does not recognize any trust and has no intent to hold the property for the beneficiary. it prescribes in 10 years. 26 in the names of Victoriana Ang Bansing Orfelina Ang Bansing and Francisco Ang Banging. it would appear that the trustee had repudiated the trust and the petitioner herein. J. the action for reconveyance had prescribed. Separate Opinion AQUINO. 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. From that date up to April 11. if property is acquired through mistake or fraud. not to an express trust So. Such a constructive trust is not a trust in the technical sense and is prescriptible. the person obtaining it is. 1941. Thus. The repudiation must be known to the cestui que trust and must be direct. dissenting: The defense of prescription cannot be set up in an action to recover property held in trust for the benefit of another. there is neither promise nor fiduciary relations. upon the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. the real plaintiff in this case is the Republic of the Philippines and prescription does not run against the State. A partition proceeding is an appropriate remedy to enforce this right. 1969. considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes." It does not arise by agreement or intention. the 10-year prescriptive period began on March 31. 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". open and equivocal.. but by operation of law. 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. applies to an implied trust. courts of equity will impress upon the title a so-called constructive trust in favor of the defrauded party. That is one of the limitations upon the finality of a decree of title The rule. by force of law. as a general rule a trust estate (in an express trust) is exempt from the operation of the statute of limitations. 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. that an express trust had been established. even granting. Clearly. more than 28 years had passed. Thus. did not take any action therein until after the lapse of 23 years. 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.

. ISSUE: WON the agreement created a trust HELD: YES Court cited pertinent AmJur the most releveant being ―A constructive trust. or questionable means. against one who. It has been broadly ruled that a breach of confidence. by fraud. although in business or social relations. or an implied trust. Misamis Oriental. conscience and fair dealing and thus protect the innocent against fraud. concealment. hold and enjoy. were the owners pro-indiviso of a parcel of land located in Tagoloan. rendering an acquisition or retention of property by one person unconscionable against another. Furthermore it could not be an implied trust because the law states that ―Art. by duress or abuse of confidence. morality. considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes. 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. Esperanza Roa de Ongpin. an involuntary trust. 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. 123 SCRA 3 FACTS: plaintiff and his brothers and sisters Trinidad Reyes Roa. a trust de son tort. Concepcion Roa and Zosimo Roa. 1456. otherwise known as a trust ex maleficio. Pablo died so ownership passed to his heirs. raises a constructive trust. Jr. artifice. either has obtained or holds the legal right to property which he ought not. 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. the enumeration given does not preclude the existence of other types of trusts that are in line with the general law on trusts. actual or constructive. vs. the person obtaining it is. However. is a trust by operation of law which arises contrary to intention and in invitum. a trust ex delicto.‖ And in this case there was no use of force or fraud in play. husband of the latter. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud. Also the property described I the original agreement was partitioned already to the plaintiff in this case. or by any form of unconscionable conduct. takes cognizance. however no lot was given as replacement nor were they paid. in equity and good conscience. or who in any way against equity and good conscience. So basically the court concluded that although this type of scenario may not fall under the types of implied trusts enumerated in the CC.‖ 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. ordinarily such a trust arises and will be declared only on wrongful acquisitions or retentions of property of which equity. They filed for the issuance of title but opposition was made by one Pablo Valdehuesa for a portion of the land. Pablo claimed that the portion was his. Roa. in accordance with its fundamental principles and the traditional exercise of its jurisdiction or in accordance with statutory provision. by force of law. As a result of the agreement Pablo withdrew his opposition. by commission of wrong. It is raised by equity to satisfy the demands of justice.13 | P a g e 137. Court of Appeals.

1957 and 1958 at prices exceedingly by P13.88 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. Tuason died leaving a will. Angela and Antonio. sin embargo.14 | P a g e 138. 1959. as set forth in said paragraph.42. y con su producto adquirir otros bienes.88 — the original appraised value thereof. (The fact that it is treated as profit within the purview of our internal revenue law is not controlling. Pursuant to the general law on trust. all surnamed Perez y Tuason. the present trusteeship proceedings was instituted and certain properties of the estate of the  .828. In conformity with this provision of said will. which in turn depends upon the latter's intent. with the proceeds of the sale. Said sum not income. a favor de mis mencionados nietos seran administrados por mi albacea.52 and P81. Aforesaid sum of P98. Por nietos.828. Lego a mi hijo Antonio otra porcion equivalente a dos novenas partes del caudal hereditario.: Trustor: Angela S. as provided in the above quoted paragraph of the will of the decedent. su hermano. the grandchildren of the decedent referred to in her aforementioned will. Araneta. honorarios razonables.023. Antonio Araneta (y en defecto de este. Antonio Araneta Beneficiaries: Benigno. TC: Ruled in favor of trustee J. as part of the trust.") leaves no room for doubt about the intent of the testatrix to keep. 4 SCRA 430 (1962) CONCEPCION. con amplios poderes de vender los mismos. other property ("con amplios poderos de vender los mismos. and praying that the trustee be accordingly instructed to deliver said sum. Los dos legados. La administracion sobre un grupo cesara cuando todos misnietos de dicho grupo llegare a su mayoria de edad. a rason de una novena parte del caudal hereditario que dejare para cada uno de ellos.386. J. Deberasin embargo.828.88 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. estan sujetos a la manda que se menciona en el parrafo siguiente. J. valued P900. the grandchildren of the decedent Sometime in 1948. Angela and Antonio. Lego asimismo a mis nietos que fueren de mi hija Nieves. said proceeds of the sale. y con suproducto adquirir otros bienes. y una mayoria de los mismos acordaren la terminacion de la administracion. Angela S. all surnamed Perez y Tuason.88 is a matter dependent exclusively upon the conditions upon which the trust had been established.418. Salvador Araneta). Antonio Araneta. the judicial guardian and father of said minors filed a motion in the trusteeship proceedings alleging that said sum of P98. SC: Affirmed TC judgment. P4. Y finalmente lego a mis nietos deceased. On September 28. respectively — aggregating P98. "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 que fueren hijos de mi hija Angela otra porcion equivalente de dos novenas partes del caudal hereditario. Y asimismo. as trustee for the benefit of Benigno.) The provision of the will of the decedent explicitly authorizing the trustee to sell the property held in trust and to acquire. rendir trimestralmente. pursuant to the above quoted provision of the will. Perez vs. debe entederse no solamente a los nietos varones sino tambien a los nietos mujeres. Antonio Araneta. Tuason Trustee: J. otra porcion equivalente a dos novenas partes del caudal hereditario. the issue as to whether or not the minors are entitled to the delivery of said sum of P98.828. Los poderos de dicho administrador seran los de un trustee con los poderes mas amplios permitidos por la ley. and not to turn the same over to the beneficiary as net rentals ("rentas netas").  To begin with. Dichos tres legados.00 were turned over in 1950 to J. paragraph 4 of which reads: Instituyo como mis unicos herederos a mis mencionados tres hijos.94. cuenta de su administracion a los legatarious que fueren mayores de edad. Portions of said properties constituting the trust were sold in 1956. y con derecho a cobrar por su administracion.

" 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.  ..15 | P a g e intention that he should be entitled to receive gains arising from the sale of trust property ..

then a written instrument must be used as proof of the trust. . 21 SCRA 1192 the main idea is that if the trust is expressed. meaning.. the plaintiffs in this case. Cuaycong. Cuaycong vs. didn't present any written instrument. apparently. instead. they claimed that the trust was implied hence there was no need to present a written document as parole evidence suffices.16 | P a g e 139. clearly understood from the wordings.

upon vague and inconclusive proof. the Court said that ―an action for reconveyance of realty. Sinaons were registered owners for more than 40 years had become indefeasible and possession could not be disturbed. based upon a constructive or implied trust resulting from fraud. 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. Note: Even assuming that there was an implied trust. 1923. The supposed trust in this case is a constructive trust arising by operation of law. Soroñgon. J Facts 1. 1968 – Sorongon (et al) amended their complaint filed in 1964 that Canuta and the Sinaons were TRUSTEES of the lot in litigation. Held/Ratio: No. Any pretension as to the existence of an implied trust should not be countenanced. It is not a trust in the technical sense. 1. As such the heirs of Domingo’s four heirs are entitled to 4/5 share.17 | P a g e 140. Civil Code). 5. Citing Suarez vs Tirambulo where it was held that An implied trust ―cannot be established contrary to the recitals of a Torrens Title. (Art 1465. 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. prescription would have worked in favor of the Sinaons. 2. Trial Court – sustained the ―Trustee‖ theory of Sorongon.Canuta sold the lot to spouses Patricio Sinaon and Julia Sualibio (granddaughter of Canuta) a. OCT No 6178-A was issued in 1917 to Canuta 3. The prescriptive period is reckoned from the issuance of the title which operates as a constructive notice‖. may be barred by prescription. Sorongon used unreliable oral evidence to prove the trust to which . No 3. Canutas were registered owners for more than 40years and had possession of the lot during that period 4. Civil Code). 136 SCRA 407 (1985) Aquino. In Gerona vs de Guzman. 4 March 1916 – Judge Carlos Imperial adjudicated to Canuta Soblingo Lot No 4781 of the Sta Barbara. The Court said that there was no express trust because ―Express trusts concerning real property cannot be proven by parol evidence (Art 1443. and ordered the Sinaons to convey 4/5 of Lot No 4781 to Sorongon et al. Iloilo cadastre with an area of 5.5 hectares. Sinaon vs.

she filed a petition for issuance of a new title. of the Rules of Court. Spouses Valentin are already barred by laches ISSUE: 1. Cruz. The complaint fails to allege that earnest efforts toward a compromise were exerted considering that the suit is between members of the same family. 1993 | BELLOSILLO 5. b. Transfer Certificate of Title No.R. 1943 – Philippine Sugar Estate Development Company. May 31.. par. Spouses Hugo:deny the existence of any form of trust relation. subject to the limitations in Article 2035. with assumption of the real estate mortgage constituted thereon. 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. 1944 the CFI Manila granted her petition. VALENTIN CO CHO CHIT. b. Sta.NO HELD: YES!!! FACTS: 1. 1976 – finding no trust relation between the parties. 1981 (ipapanganak na si Azy nito. No. 3. O LAY KIA and CA G.. ii. 6. EMILIA O'LACO and HUCO LUNA v. O'Laco actually bought the property with her own money ii. and no trust relation exists between them. iii. May 17. 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. 8 Lot No. WON there was effort on the side of spouses Hugo to settle the controversy . Appealed to SC. i. sold a parcel of land7 with the Deed of Absolute Sale naming O'Laco as vendee. 1 a. she left the Deed of Absolute Sale and the corresponding title with spouses Valentin merely for safekeeping. Emilia O'Laco breached the trust when she sold the land to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila.YES 2. June 22. 2. CA. Emilia O'Laco and respondent O Lay Kia are half-sisters 2.. thereafter. The complaint must show that there were efforts towards compromise. WON laches came in . 7 RATIO: 1. and that the legal title thereto was merely placed in her name. but that the same have failed. Manila Superseded by the Family Code. 4. Ltd.‖ . Ltd. 1. Procedural -. September 20.YES 3. CONTENTION OF SPOUSES HUGO (PETITIONERS): 1. MR denied. Block No. (j). pursuant to Art. Rule 16. 5. WON there was an implied trust . which was granted on 30 June 1960. 10. 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. 58010 | March 31. hehehe) – reversed TC decision. dismissed the complaint together with the counterclaim. 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.00. Petitioners and respondents appealed. situated at Oroquieta St. On August 18. Asked the trial court to garnish all the amounts still due and payable to spouses Hugo arising from the sale. 7. spouses Valentin told her that these were misplaced or lost.Contention no. April 9. Plan Psu-10038. 222 of the New Civil Code 8.000. or a motion to dismiss could have been filed under Sec. 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. when O’Laco asked for the return of the documents evidencing her ownership. a. hence.18 | P a g e 141. 66456 was issued in her name. CFI Rizal. i.

1.e. (APPLICATION OF NO. Trust relations between parties may either be express or implied. or which are superinduced on the transaction by operation of law as matters of equity. independently of the particular intention of the parties. . 1451. without being express. As per O Lay Kia. Spouses Valentin did not formally amend their complaint.10 i. Implied trusts may be established by oral evidence.1452 and 1453. ii. i. But. Before buying the property. b. They were allowed to introduce evidence purporting to show that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made. the reason why these documents of ownership remained with her is that the land in question belonged to her.19 | P a g e c.. older brother of Emilia. obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not. 1455 and 1456. duress or abuse of confidence. 2) Substantial – existence of trust relations a. or will. As stipulated by the parties. or by words evincing an intention to create a trust. i. if the cause of action was originally within that court's jurisdiction. It cannot be established upon vague and inconclusive proof. 1449. They arise contrary to intention against one who. Sta. 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. both coming into being by operation of law. 3. d. e. are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent. They arise from the nature or circumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person thereby becomes invested with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his legal title for the benefit of another. O Lay Kia pressed O'Laco for the transfer of the title of the Oroquieta property in the name of spouses Valentin. the document of sale. (ISSUE NO. Implied trusts may either be resulting or constructive trusts. the proof should be as fully convincing as if the acts giving rise to the trust obligation were proven by an authentic document. 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. This testimony was not objected to by spouses Hugo. instead of transferring the title as requested. Express trusts concerning immovables or any interest therein cannot be proved by parol evidence. where the certificate of title was placed in the name of Ambrosio O'Laco. 1448. 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. If the defendant permits evidence to be introduced without objection and which supplies the necessary allegations of a defective complaint. Constructive trusts are created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. insurance policies. Express trusts are those which are created by the direct and positive acts of the parties. 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. 10 Specific examples of resulting trusts may be found in the Civil Code. 1450. 23 while constructive trusts are illustrated in Arts. particularly Arts. the owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title. Implied trusts are those which.9 Hence. 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. 1. i. i. by some writing or deed. Cruz. 2. b. 2) There is a resulting trust was indeed intended by the parties under Art. under similar or identical circumstances. then the evidence is deemed to have the effect of curing the defects of the complaint. c. In order to establish an implied trust in real property by parol evidence. ii. by fraud. Emilia sold the property to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila. 1448 of the NCC: a. in equity and good conscience. Manila. 9 That is. just before O’Laco’s marriage to Hugo. the complaint was deemed accordingly amended to conform to the evidence. spouses Valentin purchased another property situated in Kusang-Loob. to hold. 1454. i.

there was an implied admission by Ambrosio that his sister Emilia. a. Valentin was the Chief Mechanic of the Paniqui Sugar Mills. i. such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui qui trust. Once the resulting trust is repudiated. 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. A resulting trust is repudiated if the following requisites concur: i. Emilia failed to convince the Court that she was financially capable of purchasing the property. b. the rule of imprescriptibility may apply for as long as the trustee has not repudiated the trust. The TC determined that spouses Valentin had some money with which they could buy the property. 39 while the property in question was bought in 1943. Until the sale of the contested property to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila. thereby modifying previous decisions holding that the prescriptive period was four (4) years. 5. or just before she got married. Correspondingly. b. e. the evidence thereon is clear and convincing. and. O Lay Kia asked Emilia to have the title to the property already transferred to her and her husband Valentin. was merely used as a dummy. Emilia O'Laco actually recognized the trust. the trustee has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui qui trust. d. Ambrosio O'Laco filed a case against the AntiDummy Board. a. Specifically. laches cannot lie against them. 1. In fact." i. i. 1. It really looks that there was conspiracy between the siblings to defraud and deprive spouses Valentin of their properties. iii. when spouses Valentin learned that Emilia was getting married to Hugo. 2. As late as 1959. The Court categorically ruled that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten (10) years.20 | P a g e 1. c. and not otherwise. The petitions respectively filed by Emilia and Ambrosio for both properties were both granted on the same day by the CFI of Manila. Emilia continued to recognize the ownership of spouses Valentin over the Oroquieta property. Immediately after Emilia sold the Oroquieta property spouses Valentin instituted the present suit for breach of trust. ii. and Emilia assured her that "would be arranged (maaayos na)" after her wedding. like him. 4. however. because of this. 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. Spouses Valentin even filed an action for reconveyance against Ambrosio when he claimed the Kusang-Loob property as his own. she opened a bank account only in 1946 and likewise began filing income tax returns that same year. . (APPLICATION OF NO. 3) In resulting trust. it is converted into a constructive trust and is subject to prescription. which they won. (ISSUE NO.

Manila.C. Inc. 1963 and 3. the Sheriff of Manila caused the annotation of a notice of levy on TCT No. consisting 348 square meters and registered in the names of:* 1. WON Estudillo is merely the trustee of Centro La Paz? WON the ―Acknowledgements‖ of registered owners not being annotated on TCT No. 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. Trustor: Centro La Paz Trustee: Alejandro Estudillo.. widow. et.  July 23. 1966  July 21. Joaquina de la Rosa. CENTRO submitted a third party claim to the Sheriff of Manila likewise averring exclusive ownership of the properties in question. A writ of execution was thereafter issued but which has remained unsatisfied. Pedro Paguio. interest and participation of Alejandro Estudillo.   The Deed of Donation dated March 13. Preponderance of evidence CENTRO had established that it was "really and true and lawful owner of the property in dispute. long before the filing of the replevin case on December 28. Manila. in an action for Replevin with Sum of Money. 51837 is conclusive of all matters. February 15. President of CENTRO. 1971. the series of documents executed even as early as 1957. 1972. Inc.  Title covers 2 parcels of land situated in Sampaloc. 51837 executed by Sta. in respect of the rights. 1973: schedule of the public auction sale of Estudillo's rights and interests in said properties  June 27. Centro La Paz. married to Juliana Roberto. all Chapter members. ISSUE/s: I. No. is a semi-religious and charitable organization. II. 2. Deed of Sale of two parcels in dispute described under T. 1957 Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Joaquina dela Rosa in favor of Alejandro Estudillo. has a juridical personality of its own in accordance with the provisions of our laws. al* FACTS:  The Union Espiritista Cristiana de Filipinas. and that the persons registered therein as its owners are merely trustees of the plaintiff. 1963 2. Date of letters are as follows HELD: I. 1973.  December 15. valid and binding? Whether or not Centro La Paz which is merely a Chapter of Union Espiritista de Filipinas.  October 10. Inc. 1961 and October 2.727.T. Pedro Paguio and Maximo Victoria of the same property covered by the Deed of Donation. Alejandro Estudillo. 1972. married to Primitiva Victoria. 1971 praying for the revocation of tax assessments on said properties as the same. 1973. 1. against one Alejandro Estudillo in the amount of P94.52. attest to plaintiff's ownership of the property in question. 121 SCRA 748 1. III. married to Amor Jose and 4. as evidenced by "Acknowledgments" executed by them on October 20. Maximo Victoria. November 29.21 | P a g e 142. Special Services Corporation vs. 51837. 3. 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. August 8. 2. judgment was rendered in favor of petitioner Special Services Corporation by the CFI. Branch IV.  Estudillo further alleged that CENTRO's ownership was also evidenced by letters sent to the City Assessor by him and Crispulo Romero. long before the issue of whether Alejandro Estudillo really has an interest and/or participation in the property in dispute. one of the registered owners indicated in said title. Mesa  . were used for religious purposes. more or less.

widow of Paguio and the latter's daughters. which is the real party in interest and is itself named in the Complaint. Evident from the record that although it was CENTRO that was actively prosecuting the case. with Special Service Corp. Inc. jointly by Amor Jose. Inc. said registration. 1962 respectively Deed of Sale executed by Estudillo. heirs of dela Rosa and Paguio of the two parcels in favor of Centro La Paz. 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. being owned by a religious organization and. December 29. III. Pedro Q. 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. hold the properties in trust for CENTRO by virtue of the indubitable documents executed even before the institution of suit. the evidence sufficiently establishes that the registered owners of the parcels of land covered by TCT 51837. however. Petitions for revocation of tax assessments Nos. 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. 51837. dated February 15. 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. 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. The absence of . in favor of Alejandro Estudillo. Follow-up letters addressed to the City Assessor of Manila.       II. 1961 also executed by Estudillo de la Rosa and Victoria acknowledging that the property described under the aforementioned T.C. Deed of Acknowledgment executed on October 22.. cannot be taken against CENTRO inasmuch as. and thus possessed of a juridical personality to sue and be sued. 3187 and 3188 Petition to exempt said parcels from taxation.T. in substance. It is an organization that is duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. registered solely in the name of a husband. 1963. the Union Espiritista Cristiana de Filipinas. are merely trustees of the plaintiff. it was representing the mother organization. can be proven to be conjugal property with his wife. Admittedly. Joaquina dela Rosa. 1971. No. all of whom are members of CENTRO.22 | P a g e Realty. which knowledge was equivalent to registration of the several "Acknowledgments" in the Registry of Deeds. particularly when the latter had filed a third-party-claim with the Sheriff of Manila before the scheduled auction sale. In the same manner that the real property. together with the improvements thereon are being possessed by them only as trustees.1963 and May 29. (SSC) as the successful buyer. Paguio and Maximo Victoria Deed of Acknowledgment dated October 30. if the public auction sale had actually been held.

Chiao Liong Tan vs. Chiao claims that the van is registered under his name. 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. There was also agreement that he would use the vehicle as he paid for the same. which derives its strength from the confidence one reposes on another especially between brothers. 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. As much as the receipt was placed in the name of petitioner. After a month. private respondent allowed the registration under the name of petitioner. he was leaving for the US and petitioner is the only Filipino left in the Philippines. The trial court hence ruled in favor of the private respondent and the CA affirmed this decision. On the side issue of replevin. As owner thereof. that he allowed his brother to use the vehicle because the latter was working for the company. According to respondent CLT Industries is the family business and it was under the name of petitioner since at the that time. he asked petitioner to look for a vehicle and gave him money as downpayment for an Isuzu Elf van.23 | P a g e 143. although no specific provision could be cited to apply to the parties herein. and that his brother later refused to return the vehicle and appropriated the same for himself. Tan Ban Yong. Court of Appeals. does not lose that character simply because of what appears in a legal document. and utilization of the van until his older brother. 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. 228 SCRA 75 FACTS: Chiao Long Tan claims to be the owner of a 1976 Isuzu Elf van. 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. enjoyment. the question of ownership may be resolved in the same proceeding. A trust. Thus. . 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. unlawfully took it away from him. the court said that respondent should have filed for recovery of possession on the basis of ownership. When the family business needed a vehicle. that he bought the vehicle from isuzu balintawak. he paid for the van by getting a loan from a friend. All the abovementioned allegations of private respondent has been corroborated by witnesses.

which was at that time still public land. they never got the title from Casa and Castro. SABAS H. Casa and Castro’s motion to dismiss: a. Homena and Juaneza’s opposition to the motion to dismiss: a. 3. b. Hence. uninterrupted adverse and public possession of the property in question. Appealed to CA. Under the Public Land Act. Homena and Juaneza are not the proper party to institute the action to annul the homestead patent. Homena and Juaneza cannot invoke the doctrine of implied trust based on an illegal contract. 1967. c. b. The validity of the patent as a whole was not assailed. As parties to a void contract. continuous. open. 4. 3. L-32749 | January 22. 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. .R. MR denied. the Homena and Juaneza have no rights which they can enforce and the court cannot lend itself to its enforcement. where plaintiffs clearly have no cause of action. a. 2. 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 allege than on June 15. No. since thirteen years had elapsed from the issuance of the homestead patent before the action was filed. TC dismissed the case. it needs 4 years to be prescribed. 1988 | YAP FACTS: 1. it is intended to circumvent and violate the law. action was started before that time elapsed. Because of the fraud in registration. However. The issue of prescription or laches becomes irrelevant in a case such as this. DIMAS CASA AND MARIA CASTOR and the REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF COTABATO G. Homena and Juaneza filed a case against Casa and Castor for unlawful dispossession disturbing the former’s peaceful. only with respect to the 2 hectares that Casa and Castro were able to register. b. the agreement is clearly illegal and void ab initio. 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. 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. and c. complaint is barred by prescription. The deed of sale executed on June 15. ISSUE: WON there was an implied trust among the parties HELD: NO!!!! RATIO: 1. the homestead owner was prohibited from transferring his rights.24 | P a g e 144. which certified the case to SC. HOMENA and ILUMINADA JUANEZA v. 2.

unless a different intention or understanding appears. Having supplied the purchase money. Lucas' possession of the lot was merely tolerated by Emilio and his heirs. 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. and that said defendants are still in possession of the lot. the reason that the transaction being brother to brother. which has been incorporated in the new Civil Code in Art. the case is remanded for further proceedings to allow them to present proof in support of their claim. but from the facts and circumstances. The trust which results under such circumstances does not arise from contract or agreement of the parties. In such a case. which is unenforceable without any writing.  Heirs of Emilio filed complaint for reconveyance of real property with damages.  In the order granting the motion to dismiss. SC: Implied trust. the complaint expressly alleges that "although Lucas Candelaria had no more interest over the lot. is founded upon equity. when Emilio was confined at the Culion Leper Colony up to his death on February 5. Lucas had been giving part of the rents to Fortunata Bautista. he sold his interest to his brother Emilio. Romero." From this allegation. but faced with the inability of meeting the subsequent installments because of sickness which caused him to be bedridden. not express trust. TC: Dismissed complaint on the ground that cause of action is unenforceable under the NCC and that the action has already prescribed. it is apparent that Emilio Candelaria who furnished the consideration intended to obtain a beneficial interest in the property in question. 109 Phil. 500. having refused to reconvey it to plaintiff despite repeated demands. survived by the present defendants. 1936. Lucas paid the first two installments corresponding to his lot. or convey it to another or the grantor. (1960) GUTIERREZ DAVID. In the present case. J. although from 1926. 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. the action has already prescribed. with the understanding that the necessary documents of transfer will be made later.25 | P a g e 145. that is to say. in accordance with the Emilio's wishes. and thereafter continued payment of the remaining installments until the whole purchase price had been fully satisfied. 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.: 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. 1942. Said payments done by Emilio were however made in the name of Lucas. a resulting or implied trust arises in favor of the person for whose benefit the property was intended. with the understanding that the necessary documents of transfer will be made later. who are his spouse Luisa Romero and several children. As to whether action is barred by lapse of time. 1453 thereof.  Where property is taken by a person under an agreement to hold it for. the property is held on a resulting trust in favor of the one furnishing the consideration for the transfer. This rule. 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". it may naturally be presumed  . 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. it results because of equity and arises by implication or operation of law. Lucas died in August. the second wife of Emilio. An implied trust arises where a person purchases land with his own money and takes a conveyance thereof in the name of another. Heirs of Candelaria vs. who then reimbursed him the amount he had already paid. and that since Transfer Certificate of Title No. the subsequent payments made by Emilio Candelaria until fully paid were made in the name of Lucas Candelaria.

precludes any defense of laches in a suit to declare and enforce the trust. of course. The rule in such trusts is that laches constitutes a bar to actions to enforce the trust. or convey it to the grantor. Indeed. the plaintiff's predecessor in interest. and repudiation is not required. be barred by lapse of time. 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. unless there is a concealment of the facts giving rise to the trust. Constructive or implied trusts may.26 | P a g e that he intended the purchase for his own benefit.  . Continuous recognition of a resulting trust. however.