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