You are on page 1of 7

Property whereby the subject properties were transferred by donation to

Roberto.Roberto adopted respondents Pedro Laigo and Marilou Laigo. Roberto sold ISSUE:
one parcel of land to spouses Mario and Julia Campos and the rest were sold to WON action for reconveyance under a constructive implied trust does not prescribe.
Pedro Laigo and Marilou Laigo. These sales were not known to Margarita and her
other children. HELD:
SC rendered that there is an implied trust between Roberto and Margarita. It is
During Roberto’s wake, Margarita came to know of the sales as told by Pedro deducible from the facts that the inscription of Roberto’s name in the Affidavit of
himself. Margarita, represented by her daughter, Luz, instituted a complaint for the Transfer as Margarita’s transferee is not for the purpose of transferring ownership to
annulment of said sales and for the recovery of ownership and possession of the him but only to enable him to hold the property in trust for Margarita.
subject properties as well as for the cancellation of Ricardo’s tax declarations. Morever, the instant case has characteristic of a constructive trust , which impresses
upon a person obtaining property through mistake or fraud the status of an implied
Spouses Campos, Marilou and Pedro advanced that they were innocent purchasers trustee for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes. Petitioner, in
for value and in good faith. Further, they noted that Margarita’s claim was already laying claim against respondents who are concededly transferees who professed
barred by prescription having validly derived their ownership from Roberto, is in effect enforcing against
Margarita and the Spouses Campos amicably entered into a settlement whereby respondents a constructive trust relation that arose by virtue of the wrongful and
they waived their respective claims against each other. Margarita died two days later fraudulent transfer to them of the subject properties by Roberto.
and was substituted by her estate.
Action for reconveyance under a constructive implied trust in accordance with Article
The trial court rendered Partial Decision approving the compromise agreement and 1456 does not prescribe unless and until the land is registered or the instrument
dismissing the complaint against the Spouses Campos. Trial on the merits ensued affecting the same is inscribed in accordance with law, inasmuch as it is what binds
with respect to Pedro and Marilou. the land and operates constructive notice to the world. In the present case, however,
Trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint. It found no express the lands involved are concededly unregistered lands; hence, there is no way by
trust created between Roberto and Margarita by virtue merely of the said document which Margarita, during her lifetime, could be notified of the furtive and fraudulent
as there was no evidence of another document showing Robert’s undertaking to sales made in 1992 by Roberto in favor of respondents, except by actual notice from
return the subject properties. An implied or constructive trust was created between Pedro himself in August 1995. Hence, it is from that date that prescription began to
the parties. Moreover , the trial court pointed out that recovery could no longer be toll. The filing of the complaint in February 1996 is well within the prescriptive
pursued because Margarita had likewise exhausted the 10 year prescriptive period period. Finally, such delay of only six (6) months in instituting the present action
for reconveyance based on an implied trust which had commenced to run in 1968 hardly suffices to justify a finding of inexcusable delay or to create an inference that
upon execution of Affidavit of Transfer. Margarita has allowed her claim to stale by laches.

The appellate court had found no implied trust. Nevertheless, it held that the 10 year RATIO:
prescriptive period had already been exhausted by Margarita because her cause of Express or direct trusts are created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by
action had accrued way back in 1968 and that while laches and prescription as some writing or deed, or will, or by oral declaration in words evincing an intention to
defenses could have availed against Roberto, he same would be unavailing against create a trust. Implied trusts – also called “trusts by operation of law,” “indirect trusts”
Pedro and Marilou because the latter were supposedly buyers in good faith and for and “involuntary trusts” – arise by legal implication based on the presumed intention
value.
of the parties or on equitable principles independent of the particular intention of the an important circumstance for consideration; hence, the doctrine is not to be applied
parties. mechanically as between near relatives.

Implied trusts are further classified into constructive trusts and resulting G.R. No. L- 19872
trusts. Constructive trusts, on the one hand, come about in the main by operation of EMILIANO RAMOS VS. GREGORIA RAMOS
law and not by agreement or intention. They arise not by any word or phrase, either December 3, 1974
expressly or impliedly, evincing a direct intention to create a trust, but one which
arises in order to satisfy the demands of justice. Also known as trusts ex FACTS:
maleficio, trusts ex delicto and trusts de son tort, they are construed against one who
by actual or constructive fraud, duress, abuse of confidence, commission of a wrong
or any form of unconscionable conduct, artifice, concealment of questionable means, The spouses Martin Ramos and Candida Tanate died on October 4, 1906 and
or who in any way against equity and good conscience has obtained or holds the October 26, 1888, respectively. They were survived by their three legitimate children
legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, hold and named Jose, Agustin and Granada. Martin Ramos was also survived by his seven
enjoy. They are aptly characterized as “fraud-rectifying trust,” imposed by equity to natural children named Atanacia, Timoteo, Modesto, Manuel, Emiliano, Maria and
satisfy the demands of justice and to defeat or prevent the wrongful act of one of the Federico.
parties. On the other hand, resulting trusts arise from the nature or circumstances of
the consideration involved in a transaction whereby one person becomes invested On December 10, 1906 a special proceeding was instituted in the Court of First
with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his title for the benefit of another. This Instance of Negros Occidental for the settlement of the intestate estate of the said
is based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title is spouses. Rafael O. Ramos, a brother of Martin, was appointed administrator. The
determinative of equitable title or interest and is always presumed to have been estate was administered for more than six years.
contemplated by the parties. Such intent is presumed as it is not expressed in the
instrument or deed of conveyance and is to be found in the nature of their It was agreed in the project of partition that Jose Ramos would pay the cash
transaction. Implied trusts of this nature are hence describable as “intention- adjudications to Atanacia, Timoteo and Manuel, while Agustin Ramos would pay the
enforcing trusts.” cash adjudications to Modesto, Federico, Emiliano and Maria. It was further agreed
that Jose Ramos and Agustin Ramos would pay their sister, Granada, the sums of
A trust, it is said, terminates upon the death of the trustee, particularly where the trust P3,302.36 and P14,273.78, respectively.
is personal to him. Besides, prescription and laches, in respect of this resulting trust
relation, hardly can impair petitioner’s cause of action. On the one hand, in Judge Richard Campbell approved the project of partition as well as the intervention
accordance with Article 1144 of the Civil Code, an action for reconveyance to of Timoteo Zayco as guardian of the five heirs, who were minors.
enforce an implied trust in one’s favor prescribes in ten (10) years from the time the
right of action accrues, as it is based upon an obligation created by law.[67] It sets in In an order dated February 3, 1914 Judge V. Nepomuceno asked the administrator
from the time the trustee performs unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an to submit a report, complete with the supporting evidence, showing that the shared of
ouster of the cestui que trust which are made known to the latter. the heirs had been delivered to them as required in the decision of April 28,1913
On the other hand, laches, being rooted in equity, is not always to be applied strictly
in a way that would obliterate an otherwise valid claim especially between blood Granada Ramos and the natural children were assumed to have received their
relatives. The existence of a confidential relationship based upon consanguinity is shares from the administrator although according to the object of partition, Jose
Ramos and Agustin Ramos (not the administrator) were supposed to pay the cash Ramos and Granada Ramos and the late Jose Ramos accorded successional rights
adjudications to each of them. No receipts were attached to the manifestation. to the plaintiffs because martin Ramos and members of his family had treated them
Apparently, the manifestation was not in strict conformity with the terms of judge as his children. Presumably, that fact was well-known in the community. Under the
Nepomuceno's order and with the project of partition itself. circumstances, Agustin Ramos and Granada Ramos and the heirs of Jose Ramos
are estopped from attacking plaintiffs' status as acknowledged natural children. Even
the lower court, after treating the plaintiffs in 1913 in the intestate proceeding as
Furthermore, Plaintiffs alleged that they only discovered later on that the property acknowledged natural children, had no choice but to reaffirm that same holding in its
administered by their elder brother Jose had a Torrens Title in the name of his 1961 decision in this case.
widow, Gregoria, and daughter, Candida, when plaintiff Modesto's children insisted
and inquired from the Register of Deeds sometime in 1956 or 1957. Plaintiffs did not ISSUE:
intervene in the intestate proceedings for (the) settlement of the estate of their WON prescription and laches may bar the action for reconveyance of property
brother Jose as they did not know of it. allegedly held in trust.

The instant action was filed on September 5, 1957 against defendants Agustin HELD:
Ramos, Granada Ramos and the heirs of Jose Ramos for the purpose of securing a The prescriptibility of an action for reconveyance based on constructive trust is now
reconveyance of the supposed participations of plaintiffs Atanacia, Emiliano, Manuel, settled. Prescription may supervene in an implied trust. And whether the trust is
Maria and Modesto, all surnamed Ramos, in the aforementioned eight (8) lots which resulting or constructive, its enforcement may be barred by laches.
apparently form part of Hacienda Calaza. The action is really directed against the
heirs of Jose Ramos, namely, his wife Gregoria and his daughter Candida in whose The plaintiffs did not prove any express trust in this case. The expediente of the
names the said eight lots are now registered. It is predicated on the theory that intestate proceeding, particularly the project of partition, the decision and the
plaintiffs' shares were held in trust by the defendants. No deed of trust was alleged manifestation as to the receipt of shares negatives the existence of an express trust.
and proven. Those public documents prove that the estate of Martin Ramos was settled in that
proceeding and that adjudications were made to his seven natural children. A trust
After trial, lower court dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata. The must be proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. It cannot rest on
plaintiffs as well as the defendants appealed to CA which eventually affirmed RTC vague and uncertain evidence or on loose, equivocal or indefinite declarations.
decision.
Neither have the plaintiffs specified the kind of implied trust contemplated in their
CA held that the acknowledgment of the plaintiffs is not evidenced by a record of action. We have stated that whether it is a resulting or constructive trust, its
birth, will or other public document. But the record, which is relied upon by the enforcement may be barred by laches.
defendants to support their defense of res judicata, indubitably shows that the
plaintiffs were treated as acknowledged natural children of Martin Ramos. The Those nature of transactions prove that the heirs of Jose Ramos had repudiated any
reasonable inference is that they were in the continuous possession of the status of trust which was supposedly constituted over Hacienda Calaza in favor of the
natural children of Martin Ramos, as evidenced by his direct acts and the acts of his plaintiffs.
family.
The fact that the plaintiffs, as natural children of Martin Ramos, received shares in Under Act 190, whose statute of limitations applies to this case, the longest period of
his estate implies that they were acknowledged. Obviously, defendants Agustin extinctive prescription was only ten years.
Atanacia, Modesto and Manuel, all surnamed Ramos, were already of age in 1914. There is a rule that a trustee cannot acquire by prescription the ownership of
From that year, they could have brought the action to annul the partition. Maria property entrusted to him or that an action to compel a trustee to convey property
Ramos and Emiliano Ramos were both born in 1896. They reached the age of registered in his name in trust for the benefit of the cestui qui trust does not
twenty-one years in 1917. They could have brought the action from that year. prescribed or that the defense of prescription cannot be set up in an action to recover
property held by a person in trust for the benefit of another or that property held in
The instant action was filed only in 1957. As to Atanacia, Modesto and Manuel, the trust can be recovered by the beneficiary regardless of the lapse of time.
action was filed forty-three years after it accrued and, as to Maria and Emiliano, the
action was filed forty years after it accrued. The delay was inexcusable. The instant That rule applies squarely to express trusts. The basis of the rule is that the
action is unquestionably barred by prescription and res judicata. possession of a trustee is not adverse. Not being adverse, he does not acquire by
prescription the property held in trust. Thus, section 38 of Act 190 provides that the
law of prescription does not apply "in the case of a continuing and subsisting trust".
RATIO:
In its technical legal sense, a trust is defined as the right, enforceable solely in Acquisitive prescription may bar the action of the beneficiary against the trustee in an
equity, to the beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal title to which is vested in express trust for the recovery of the property held in trust where (a) the trustee has
another, but the words 'trust' is frequently employed to indicate duties, relations, and performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui qui
responsibilities which are not strictly technical trusts. trust; (b) such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui qui
trust and(c) the evidence thereon is clear and conclusive.
Trusts are either express or implied. Express trusts are created by the intention of
the trust or of the parties. No particular words are required for the creation of an
express trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly intended. No express trusts G.R. No. 116211
concerning an immovable or any interest therein may be proven by oral evidence. An POLICARPIO VS COURT OF APPEALS
implied trust may be proven by oral evidence. March 7, 1997

Implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, are deducible from the FACTS:
nature of the transaction as matters of intent, or which are super induced on the Petitioner (along with his co-plaintiffs in the antecedent cases, namely, Rodolfo
transaction by operation of law as matters of equity, independently of the particular Gayatin, Jose Villacin and Jocelyn Montinola) and private respondent Rosito Uy
intention of the parties". A resulting trust is broadly defined as a trust which is raised were former tenants of the 30-door Barretto Apartments formerly owned by Serapia
or created by the act or construction of law, but in its more restricted sense it is a Realty, Inc.
trust raised by implication of law and presumed always to have been contemplated
by the parties, the intention as to which is to be found in the nature of their Sometime in April 1984, private respondent was elected President of the Barretto
transaction, but not expressed in the deed or instrument of conveyance. On the other Tenants Association (hereafter referred to as the "Association") which was formed,
hand, a constructive trust is a trust "raised by construction of law, or arising by among others, "to promote, safeguard and protect the general interest and welfare of
operation of law. If a person obtains legal title to property by fraud or concealment, its members."
courts of equity will impress upon the title a so-called constructive trust in favor of the
defrauded party.
In a letter dated July 30, 1984, private respondent as president of the Association satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. They arise against one
sought the assistance of the then Minister of Human Settlements to cause the who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to
expropriation of the subject property under the Urban Land Reform Program for property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.
subsequent resale to its tenants.
A constructive trust is substantially an appropriate remedy against unjust enrichment.
Failing to get the assistance of the government, the tenants undertook to negotiate It is raised by equity in respect of property, which has been acquired by fraud, or
directly with the owners of the Barretto Apartments. Initially, Private Respondent where although acquired originally without fraud, it is against equity that it should be
Rosito Uy orally expressed to Mrs. Rosita Barretto Ochoa the tenants' desire to retained by the person holding it.
purchase their respective units. Later, in a letter dated May 29, 1985, signed by thirty
(30) tenants of the commercial and residential units, the tenants formally expressed Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means,
to Mrs. Ochoa their intent to purchase. acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without
just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.
One and a half years later, on March 12, 1987, petitioner and his co-plaintiffs were
notified that private respondent was the new owner of the apartment units occupied
by them. G.R. No. L- 31569
Subsequently, petitioners filed case against respondents. RTC found that private PADILLA VS. COURT OF APPEALS
respondent had been designated and entrusted by plaintiffs to negotiate with the September 28, 1973
Barretto family for the sale of the units. It also found that a constructive trust was
created between the private respondent as "the cestui que trust [should be trustee] FACTS:
and plaintiffs as beneficiaries [or cestuis que trust] vis-a-vis the subject units." CA The property in question was formerly owned by Vicente Padilla who mortgaged it to
reversed the RTC decision and denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration. the Government Service Insurance System (hereafter referred to as G.S.I.S) to
secure the payment of a loan of P25,000.00. For failure of said mortgagor Vicente
ISSUE: Padilla to pay the balance of the loan, the property in question was foreclosed and
WON a constructive trust existed between the plaintiffs and the defendant. sold at public auction at which the G.S.I.S was the highest bidder; a certificate of sale
was issued to the said entity and Vicente Padilla had one (1) year from the date of
HELD: sale on October 7, 1960 to October 7, 1961 within which to redeem the foreclosed
There was a constructive trust. Implied trust was created by the agreement between property.
petitioner (and the other tenants) and private respondent. The tenants could not be
faulted for not inquiring into the status of private respondent's negotiation with the After the expiration of said period of redemption, Vicente Padilla, his wife Ines Lorbes
owners of the apartments. They had a right to expect private respondent to be true to Padilla and daughter Fe Padilla, misrepresenting to the herein respondent Florencio
his duty as their representative and to take the initiative of informing them of the R. Nadera that Vicente Padilla still had the right to redeem the property, executed on
progress of his negotiations. October 8, 1961 an Agreement of Purchase and Sale conveying to Nadera the said
RATIO: property in consideration of P35,000.00 of which P10,000.00 was paid on the same
Implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, are deducible from the date by Nadera to, and received from him by, said Vicente Padilla, Ines Lorbes
nature of the transaction by operation of law as matters of equity, independently of Padilla and Fe Padilla, and the balance of the purchase price, representing the
the particular intention of the parties. Constructive trusts are created in order to indebtedness of Vicente Padilla to the G.S.I.S., was assumed by Nadera to be paid
by him to the said entity. The G.S.I.S. was not a party to the said Agreement of
Purchase and Sale and had not accepted as debtor in substitution for Vicente By virtue of the registration of (1) the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the G.S.I.S.
Padilla.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library in favor of the spouses Vicente Padilla and Ines Lorbes Padilla; (2) the agreement of
Purchase and Sale which Vicente Padilla, Ines Lorbes Padilla and Fe Padilla had
On November 27, 1961, Nadera discovered from the G.S.I.S. that Vicente Padilla executed earlier in favor of Nadera; and(3) the Confirmation of Sale executed by
had lost the right to redeem the foreclosed property.On December 12, 1961, G.S.I.S. Vicente Padilla, T.C.T. No. 100638 in the name of the G.S.I.S. was cancelled and, in
wrote to Vicente Padilla advising him that the period for redemption of the foreclosed lieu thereof, T.C.T. No. 116473 was issued by the Register of Deeds in the name of
property had expired on October 7, 1961 and that it contemplated to sell the same in the names of Vicente Padilla and Ines Lorbes Padilla. In turn, the said T.C.T. No.
thru sealed public bidding at which Vicente Padilla may participate. On June 28, 116473 was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, T.C.T. No. 116474 was issued by the
1962 the G.S.I.S. consolidated its ownership of the property in question and T.C.T. Register of Deeds for Rizal in the name of Florencio R.
No. 100638 was issued in its name by the Register of Deeds for Rizal. Nadera.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Vicente Padilla being a pensioner of the G.S.I.S., the latter had applied the former's On October 4, 1963, petitioner Abundio Padilla claiming to be the attorney-in-fact of
pension which amounted to P10,194.24 to the credit of said Padilla on account of the his parents Vicente Padilla and Ines Lorbes Padilla, filed with the Register of Deeds
loan afore-mentioned. Capitalizing on this fact, Nadera re-imbursed Vicente Padilla for Rizal a "Notice of Adverse Claim" which was annotated on T.C.T. No. 116474 of
with the said amount of P10,194.24 and furthermore, he Nadera paid the G.S.I.S. the Nadera.
sum of P7,815.17 on July 31, 1963 (per O.R. No. D-8606865) and another sum of
P8,049.99 on September 16, 1963 (per O.R. No. D-9124651). With the payments by On February 28, 1964, Nadera filed a petition in Case No. 6649 of the Court of First
Nadera both to Vicente Padilla and the G.S.I.S., in the total amount of P36,056.41 Instance of Rizal for removal of the notation of adverse claim on his certificate of title.
Nadera, therefore, even over-paid the consideration of P35,000.00 mentioned in the
Agreement of Purchase and Sale executed by Vicente Padilla, Ines Lorbes Padilla The lower court orderd petitioners to turn over the possession of the property to
and Fe Padilla on October 8, 1961. respondent Nadera, to pay him the sum of P350 monthly byway of rentals from
September 19, 1963 until such possession was transferred to him, P10,000.00 by
Instead of executing a deed of sale of the property in question in favor of Nadera, the way of moral damages and P3,000.00 as attorney's fees. On April 15, 1969
G.S.I.S., for and in consideration of "(P8,044.49), Philippine currency, receipt of respondent Nadera filed with the trial court a motion for correction of a typographical
which in full is hereby acknowledged under O.R. No. D-9124651 dated September error in the decision and for immediate issuance of a writ of execution, alleging that
16, 1963", executed on September 19, 1963,a deed of sale of the property in the petitioners were insolvent and that any appeal to be taken from the decision
question in favor of the spouses Vicente Padilla and Ines Lorbes Padilla. Both would be frivolous and dilatory. On April 19, 1969 the court ordered execution on a
spouses were signatories to the said deed of sales. In this regard, it will be noticed bond of P10,000 to be filed by the respondent. On April 26 the petitioners filed their
that the consideration stated in said deed is the same amount paid by Nadera, as record on appeal. On May 2 the trial court set aside its order of April 19, which it had
aforesaid, to the G.S.I.S. under O.R. No. D-9124651. issued without having heard the petitioners, and set the matter anew for hearing on
May 17. On June 10, 1969, after having heard the parties, the court again issued a
On the following day, or on September 20, 1963 Vicente Padilla executed the deed writ of execution, respondent Nadera having filed the required bond in the meantime.
of Confirmation of Sale which the herein petitioners question. The said deed was not,
however, signed by Ines Lorbes Padilla, although the same was witnessed by FE ISSUE:
PADILLA, daughter of the vendors. WON there is an implied trust.
HELD:
Resulting implied trust exists in this case. Right of respondent Nadera to the property
arose not by virtue of the said deed of confirmation but by virtue of the original
agreement of sale executed in his favor by the Padilla spouses and by their daughter
Fe Padilla. If the resale by the Government Service Insurance System upon payment
of the price of redemption by Nadera was made in favor of the Padilla spouses, it
was purely a matter of form since they were the mortgage debtors, and the least that
can be said under the circumstances is that they should be considered as trustees
under an implied or resulting trust for the benefit of the real owner, namely,
respondent Nadera.

RATIO:
Article 1448 of the Civil Code says that "there is an implied trust when property is
sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by another for
the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property ..." The concept of
implied trusts is that from the facts and circumstances of a given case the existence
of a trust relationship is inferred in order to effect the presumed (in this case it is
even expressed) intention of the parties or to satisfy the demands of justice or to
protect against fraud.