Jose

 would  be  erroneous  and  Jose’s  possession  would  be  that  

LOPEZ  v.  CA   of  a  trustee  in  an  implied  trust.  
G.R.  No.  157784  
December  16,  2008   The   apparent   mistake   in   the   adjudication   of   the   disputed  
  properties   to   Jose   created   a   mere   implied   trust   of   the  
RECIT-­‐READY:   constructive   variety   in   favor   of   the   beneficiaries   of   the  
Juliana   Lopez  made  a   notarial   will  whereby  she  wanted  to  create   Fideicomiso.  
a   trust   fund   (called   Fideicomiso)   for   her   paraphernal    
properties   (separate   properties),   to   be   administered   by   her  
ART.   1456.  If  property  is  acquired  through  mistake  
husband,   Jose.   She   wanted   2/3   of   the   income   of   her   separate  
or   fraud,   the   person   obtaining   it   is,   by   force   of   law,  
properties  to  answer  for  the  education  of  deserving  but  needy  
considered   a   trustee   of   an   implied   trust   for   the  
students   as   beneficiaries.   Juliana   died   so   her   husband   Jose   was  
benefit   of   the   person   from   whom   the   property  
the   one   who   pursued   the   petition,   as   the   designated   executor   in  
comes.  
the   will.   Jose   then   proposed   a   partition.  In   the   proposal,   he  
included   properties   which   he   alleged   were   conjugal   properties,    
but  this  included  the  6  disputed  paraphernal  properties  of  Juliana    
in  Batangas.    The  Court  approved  the  project  of  partition,  so  they  
ordered  new  certificates  be  issued  in  favor  of  Jose  as  trustee  of   NOTE:  A  lot  of  things  happened  in  this  case  but  the  only  important  
the   Fideicomiso   covering   one-­‐half   (1/2)   of   the   properties   listed   part   related   to   trust   is   that   Juliana   wanted   to   create   a   trust   fund  
under    the  project  of  partition;  and   regarding   the   other   half,   to   over   her   paraphernal   properties.   She   wanted   a   portion   of   the  
be   registered   in   the   name   of   Jose   as   heir   of   Juliana.   The   income  of  her  properties  to  be  given  to  needy  but  deserving  honor  
properties   which   Jose   had   alleged   as   registered   in   his   and   students  as  beneficiaries.  She  died  before  the  probate  of  her  will  so  
Juliana’s  names,  including  the  disputed  lots,  were  adjudicated   her   husband   was   the   one   who   continued   the   petition.   During   the  
to   Jose   as   heir.   THESE   WERE   EXCLUDED   FROM   THE   TRUST   partition   of   the   property,   the   husband   listed   the   separate  
(FIDEICOMISO).   A   complaint   for   reconveyance   was   filed   by   properties   of   Juliana   as   conjugal   property,   so   they   were  
the  current  administrator.    The  complaint  essentially  alleged   adjudicated  under  his  name  since  ½  of  conjugal  prop  goes  to  him  
that   Jose   was   able   to   register   in   his   name   the   disputed   (when   technically   dapat   separate   property   ni   Juliana   yun).  
properties,   which   were   the   paraphernal   properties   of   Juliana.   Husband   died,   the   properties   then   went   to   his   estate.   Now   the  
The   disputed   properties   were   included   in   the   inventory   as   if   current   administrator   filed   a   complaint   saying   that   hindi   naman  
they  formed  part  of  Jose’s  estate  when  in  fact  Jose  was  holding   talaga   dapat   napunta   kay   husband   yung   property   because   dapat  
them  only  in  trust  for  the  trust  estate  of  Juliana.   separate   property   ni   Juliana   yun   and   dapat   sa   beneficiaries  
napunta.  Court  said  there  was  an  IMPLIED  CONSTRUCTIVE  TRUST  
ISSUE:  W/N  there  was  an  implied  trust?   because  of  the  mistake  of  the  adjudication  of  properties.    
YES.   The   disputed   properties   were    
the  paraphernal  properties  of  Juliana  which  should  have  been  
included  in  the  Fideicomiso.  Their  registration  in  the  name  of    
 
   disputed   properties   consisting   of   six   (6)   parcels,   all  
located  in  Balayan,  Batangas,  were  included  in  said  list.    
• On  23  March  1968,  Juliana   Lopez  executed  a  notarial  will,   • On   25   August   1969,   the   probate   court   issued   an   order  
whereby   she   expressed   that   she   wished   to   constitute   a   approving   the   project   of   partition.  As  to  the  properties  to  
trust  fund   for   her   paraphernal   properties,   denominated   as   be   constituted   into   the   Fideicomiso,   the   probate   court  
Fideicomiso   de   Juliana   Lopez   Manzano   (Fideicomiso),   to   be   ordered   that   the   certificates   of   title   thereto   be   cancelled,  
administered  by  her  husband.     and,  in  lieu  thereof,  new  certificates  be  issued  in  favor  of  
o If   her   husband   were   to   die   or   renounce   the   Jose   as   trustee  of  the  Fideicomiso  covering  one-­‐half  (1/2)  
obligation,   her   nephew,   Enrique   Lopez,   was   to   of  the  properties  listed  under  paragraph  14  of  the  project  of  
become   administrator   and   executor   of   the   partition;   and  regarding  the  other  half,  to  be  registered  
Fideicomiso.     in  the  name  of  Jose  as  heir  of  Juliana.    
o Two-­‐thirds   (2/3)   of   the   income   from   rentals   over   • The   properties   which   Jose   had   alleged   as   registered   in   his  
these  properties  were  to  answer  for  the  education  of   and   Juliana’s   names,   including   the   disputed   lots,   were  
deserving  but  needy  honor  students   adjudicated   to   Jose   as   heir,   subject   to   the   condition   that  
o One-­‐third   (1/3)   was   to   shoulder   the   expenses   and   Jose   would   settle   the   obligations   charged   on   these  
fees  of  the  administrator.   properties.  
• As   to   her   conjugal   properties,   Juliana   bequeathed   the   • The   probate   court,   thus,   directed   that   new   certificates   of  
portion   that   she   could   legally   dispose   to   her   husband,   and   title   be   issued   in   favor   of   Jose   as   the   registered   owner  
after   his   death,   said   properties   were   to   pass   to   her   thereof  in  its  Order  dated  15  September  1969.    
biznietos  or  great  grandchildren.     • On   even   date,   the   certificates   of   title   of   the   disputed  
• Juliana   initiated   the   probate   of   her   will   five   (5)   days   after   properties   were   issued   in   the   name   of   Jose.   The  
its   execution,   but   she   died   on   12   August   1968,   before   the   Fideicomiso   was   constituted   in   S.P   No.   706   encompassing  
petition  for  probate  could  be  heard.     one-­‐half   (1/2)   of   the   Abra   de   Ilog   lot   on   Mindoro,   the   1/6  
• The   petition   was   pursued   instead   in   Special   Proceedings   portion  of  the  lot  in  Antorcha  St.  in  Balayan,  Batangas  and  
by   her   husband,   Jose,   who   was   the   designated   executor   in   all   other   properties   inherited   ab   intestato   by   Juliana   from  
the  will.   her   sister,   Clemencia,   in   accordance   with   the   order   of   the  
• On   7   October   1968,   the   Court   of   First   Instance,   Branch   3,   probate   court   in   S.P.   No.   706.The   disputed   lands   were  
Balayan,   Batangas,   acting   as   probate   court,   admitted   the   excluded  from  the  trust.  
will  to  probate  and  issued  the  letters  testamentary  to  Jose.   •  Jose   died   on   22   July   1980,   leaving   a   holographic   will  
Jose   then   submitted   an   inventory   of   Juliana’s   real   and   disposing   of   the   disputed   properties   to   respondents.   The  
personal  properties  with  their  appraised  values,  which   will  was  allowed  probate  on  20  December  1983  in  S.P.  No.  
was  approved  by  the  probate  court.     2675  before  the  RTC  of  Pasay  City.    
• Thereafter,  Jose  filed  a  Report  dated  16  August  1969,  which   • Pursuant  to  Jose’s  will,  the  RTC  ordered  on  20  December  
included  a  proposed   project   of   partition.  Jose  proceeded   1983   the   transfer   of   the   disputed   properties   to   the  
to   offer   a   project   of   partition.   Then,   Jose   listed   those   respondents   as   the   heirs   of   Jose.   Consequently,   the  
properties  which  he  alleged  were  registered  in  both  his   certificates   of   title   of   the   disputed   properties   were  
and   Juliana’s   names,   totaling   13   parcels   in   all.   The   cancelled   and   new   ones   issued   in   the   names   of  
respondents.    
 • Petitioner’s   father,   Enrique   Lopez,   also   assumed   the      
trusteeship  of  Juliana’s  estate.  On  30  August  1984,  the  RTC   The   provision   on   implied   trust   governing   the   factual   milieu  
of  Batangas,  Branch  9  appointed  petitioner  as  trustee  of  
Juliana’s  estate  in  S.P.  No.  706.     of  this  case  is  provided  in  Article   1456   of   the   Civil   Code,   which  
• On   11   December   1984,   petitioner   instituted   an   action   for   states:  
reconveyance   of   parcels   of   land   with   sum   of   money      
before  the  RTC  of  Balayan,  Batangas  against  respondents.     ART.   1456.  If  property  is  acquired  through  mistake  
• The  complaint  essentially  alleged  that  Jose  was  able  to   or   fraud,   the   person   obtaining   it   is,   by   force   of   law,  
register   in   his   name   the   disputed   properties,   which   considered   a   trustee   of   an   implied   trust   for   the  
were   the   paraphernal   properties   of   Juliana,   either   benefit   of   the   person   from   whom   the   property  
during   their   conjugal   union   or   in   the   course   of   the   comes.  
performance   of   his   duties   as   executor   of   the   testate    
estate   of   Juliana   and   that   upon   the   death   of   Jose,   the   Evidently,   Juliana’s   testamentary   intent   was   to   constitute   an  
disputed   properties   were   included   in   the   inventory   as   express   trust   over   her  paraphernal  properties   which   was   carried  
if   they   formed   part   of   Jose’s   estate   when   in   fact   Jose   out   when   the   Fideicomiso  was   established   in   S.P.   No.   706.  
was   holding   them   only   in   trust   for   the   trust   estate   of   However,   the   disputed   properties   were   expressly   excluded   from  
Juliana.     the  Fideicomiso.    
• The   RTC   dismissed   the   petition   on   the   ground   of    
prescription.   The   CA   denied   the   appeals   filed   by   both   The   disputed   properties   were   excluded   from   the   Fideicomiso   at  
parties.  Hence,  this  petition.   the   outset.   Jose   registered   the   disputed   properties   in   his   name  
    partly  as  his  conjugal  share  and  partly  as  his  inheritance  from  his  
ISSUE:  Whether  an  implied  trust  was  constituted  over  the  disputed   wife   Juliana,   which   is   the   complete   reverse   of   the   claim   of   the  
properties  when  Jose,  the  trustee,  registered  them  in  his  name.   petitioner,   as   the   new   trustee,   that   the   properties   are   intended   for  
    the  beneficiaries  of  the  Fideicomiso.    
HELD:    
YES.   On   the   premise   that   the   disputed   properties   were   Furthermore,   the   exclusion   of   the   disputed   properties   from   the  
Fideicomiso   was   approved   by   the   probate   court   and,  
the  paraphernal  properties  of  Juliana  which  should  have  been   subsequently,   by   the   trial   court   having   jurisdiction   over   the  
included   in   the  Fideicomiso,   their   registration   in   the   name   of   Fideicomiso.   The   registration   of   the   disputed   properties   in   the  
Jose  would  be  erroneous  and  Jose’s  possession  would  be  that   name  of  Jose  was  actually  pursuant  to  a  court  order.    
 
of   a   trustee   in   an   implied   trust.  Implied  trusts  are  those  which,   The   apparent   mistake   in   the   adjudication   of   the   disputed  
without   being   expressed,   are   deducible   from   the   nature   of   the   properties   to   Jose   created   a   mere   implied   trust   of   the  
constructive   variety   in   favor   of   the   beneficiaries   of   the  
transaction  as  matters  of  intent  or  which  are  super-­‐induced  on  the  
Fideicomiso  
transaction   by   operation   of   law   as   matters   of   equity,    
independently  of  the  particular  intention  of  the  parties