Caniza v.

CA

GR no. 110427. February 24, 1997

Digested by; Sevilla, Lloyd

Facts:

Carmen Caniza, a ninety-four years of age, was declared incompetent by

judgment by her niece, Amparo Evangelista. Caniza was the owner of a house
and lot. Her guardian Amparo commenced a suit to eject the spouse Estrada
from said premises. The complaint was later amended to identify the
incompetent Ceniza as plaintiff, suing through her legal guardian. In the said
amendment it alleged that Caniza was the absolute owner of the property in
question, that out of kindness she allowed to stay the spouses Estrada and
their family without paying any rent. Caniza need that house on account of her
advanced age and failing health, so funds could be raised to meet her
expenses for support, maintenance and medical treatment. The defendants,
however alleged that they are living in the said house since the 1960s and the
plaintiff considered them as part of her own family and the said house and lot
was bequeathed to them by virtue of a holographic will executed by Caniza.

Issue:

Whether or not the alleged will may be given effect?

Ruling:

No. A will is essentially ambulatory; at any time prior to the testator’s death, it
may be changed or revoked; and until admitted to probate, it has no effect
whatever and no right can be claimed thereunder, the law being quite explicit:
“No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and
allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court” An owner’s intention to confer
title in the future to persons possessing property by his tolerance, is not
inconsistent with the former’s taking back possession in the meantime for any
reason deemed sufficient. And that, in this case, there was sufficient cause for
the owner’s resumption of possession is apparent: she needed to generate
income from the house on account of the physical infirmities afflicting her,
arising from her extreme age.

Trusts

Republic v. CA

GR No. 114672. April 19, 2001

Facts:

Sylvia Ty was married to Alexander Ty and the latter died of leukemia and was
survived by his wife and daughter. In the settlement of the estate of Alexander,
Sylvia was appointed as an administrator of the estate. Petitioner filed a
motion for leave to sell or mortgage in order to generate funds for the payment
of deficiency estate taxes, one of those are the shares of stocks of Alexander
to different corporations. But private respondent Alejandro, the son of
Alexander, filed a motion for the recovery of the property. He contended that
those property under the name of his father, they were acquired through his
own money without any cause and consideration from deceased Alexander.
However, petitioner contended that private respondent is attempting to enforce
an unenforceable express trust over the disputed real property.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner is correct that there is an express trust created
when the property is transferred by Alexander to his son?

Ruling:

No. Express trusts are those created by the direct and positive acts of the
parties, by some writing or deed or will or by words evidencing an intention to
create a trust. On the other hand, implied trusts are those which, without being
expressed, are deductible from the nature of the transaction by operation of
law as matters of equity, independently of the particular intention to establish a
trust is clear, the trust is express; if the intent to establish a trust is to be taken
from circumstances or other matters indicative of such intent, then the trust is
implied.

In this case, private respondent contends that the pieces of property were
transferred in the name of the deceased Alexander for the purpose for him and
his siblings. Such transfer having been effected without cause of consideration,
a resulting trust was created. A resulting trust arises in favor of one who pays
the purchase money of an estate and places the title in the name of another,
because of the presumption that he who pays for thing intends a beneficial
interest therein for himself. The trust is said to result in law from the acts of the
parties. Such a trust is implied in fact. If a trust was then created, it was an
implied, not an express trust, which may be proven by oral evidence and it
matters not whether property is real or personal.