Trusts are either express or implied.
Express trusts are However, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of
created by the intention of the trustor or of the parties.
Implied trusts come into being by operation of law.
Express trusts are those which are created by the direct
and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed,
or will, or by words either expressly or impliedly evincing
an intention to create a trust. No particular words are
required for the creation of an express trust, it being
sufficient that a trust is clearly intended. However, in
accordance with Article 1443 of the Civil Code, when an
express trust concerns an immovable property or any
interest therein, the same may not be proved by parol or
oral evidence.
From the allegations of the the mother, the alleged verbal
trust agreement is in the nature of an express trust as the
mother explicitly agreed to allow the spouses to acquire
title to the property in their names, but to hold the same
property for the mother's benefit. The mother's
allegations as to the existence of an express trust
agreement with the spouses, supported only by her
testimonies, do not hold water.
Trust is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of property,
the legal title to which is vested in another. It is a fiduciary
relationship that obliges the trustee to deal with the
property for the benefit of the beneficiary. Trust relations
between parties may either be express or implied. An
express trust is created by the intention of the trustor or of
the parties, while an implied trust comes into being by
operation of law.61 Express trusts are created by direct
and positive acts of the parties, by some writing or deed,
or will, or by words either expressly or impliedly evincing
an intention to create a trust.
Under Article 1444 of the Civil Code, "[n]o particular words
are required for the creation of an express trust, it being
sufficient that a trust is clearly intended." It is possible to
create a trust without using the word "trust" or "trustee."
Dr. Rosario argues that he is deemed to have repudiated
the trust on
December 16, 1964, when he registered Lot No. 356-A in
his name under TCT No. 5275, so he claims that the action
for the recovery has already prescribed. The court rejected
this argument and said that "A trustee who obtains a
Torrens title over a property held in trust for him by
another cannot repudiate the trust by relying on the
registration. (Ringor video. Ringor).
Appeals when it held that Dr. Rosario repudiated the
express trust when he acquired another loan from PNB
and constituted a second mortgage on Lot No. 356-A
sometime in 1979, which, unlike the first mortgage to DBP
in 1965, was without the knowledge and/or consent of the
Torbela siblings. But the Torbela siblings were able to
institute Civil Case No. U-4359 well before the lapse of the
10-year prescriptive period for the enforcement of their
express trust with Dr. Rosario.
"No particular words are required for the creation of an
express trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly
intended." In reality, the development of the trust as a
method of disposition of property, so jurisprudence
teaches, "seems in large part due to its freedom from
formal requirements." This principle perhaps accounts for
the provisions in Article 1444 just quoted. For, "technical
or particular forms of words or phrases are not essential to
the manifestation of intention to create a trust or to the
establishment thereof." Nor would the use of some such
words as "trust" or" trustee" essential to the constitution
of a trust. Conversely, the mere fact that the word "trust"
or "trustee" was employed would not necessarily prove an
intention to create a trust. What is important is whether
the trustor manifested an intention to create the kind of
relationship which in law is known as a trust. It is
unimportant that the trustor should know that the
relationship "which he intends to create is called a trust,
and whether or not he knows the precise characteristics of
the relationship which is called a trust."7 Here, that trust is
effective as against defendants and in favor of the
beneficiary thereof, plaintiff Victoria Julio, who accepted it
in the document itself.
* As a rule, however, the burden of proving the existence
of a trust is on
the party asserting its existence, and such proof must be
clear and satisfactorily show the existence of the trust and
its elements. The presence of the following elements must
be proved:
(1) a trustor or settlor who executes the instrument
creating the trust;
(2) a trustee, who is the person expressly designated to
carry out the
(3) the trust res, consisting of duly identified and definite
real trust; properties; and
(4) the cestui que trust, or beneficiaries whose identity
must be clear.
 *Express trusts, sometimes referred to as direct trusts, are
intentionally created by the direct and positive acts of the
Accordingly, it was incumbent upon Cañezo to prove the settlor or the trustor - by some writing, deed, or will or
existence of the trust relationship, but she failed to oral declaration. It is created not necessarily by some
discharge that burden. written words, but by the direct and positive acts of the
parties. [22] This is in consonance with Article 1444 of the
It must be proven by some writing or deed. In this case,
Civil Code, which states that "[njo particular words are
the only evidence to support the claim that an express
required for the creation of an express trust it being
trust existed between the petitioner and her father was
sufficient that a trust is clearly intended." In other words,
the self-serving testimony of the petitioner. Bare
the creation of an express trust must be manifested with
allegations do not constitute evidence adequate to
reasonable certainty and cannot be inferred from loose
support a conclusion. They are not equivalent to proof
and vague declarations or from ambiguous circumstances
under the Rules of Court.
susceptible of other interpretations.
Although no particular words are required for the creation
* As such prescription and laches will run only if it is shown
of an express trust, a clear intention to create a trust must
that: (a) the trustee has performed unequivocal acts of
be shown; and the proof of fiduciary relationship must be
repudiation amounting to an ouster of the beneficiary; (b)
clear and convincing. The creation of an express trust must
such positive acts of repudiation have been made known
be manifested with reasonable certainty and cannot be
to the beneficiary, and (c) the evidence thereon is clear
inferred from loose and vague declarations or from
and conclusive.
ambiguous circumstances susceptible of other
interpretations. Neither can laches be attributed to them. Laches cannot
be used to defeat justice or perpetuate fraud and injustice.
*A constructive trust is one created not by any word or
Neither should it be applied to prevent rightful owners of a
phrase, either expressly or impliedly, evincing a direct
property from recovering what has been fraudulently
intention to create a trust, but one which arises in order to
registered in the name of another. However with respect
satisfy the demands of justice. It does not come about by
to the other half covered by the private Calig onan sa
agreement or intention but in the main by operation of
Pagpapalit, the heirs of Lino should have filed an action to
law, construed against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse
compel Jose's heirs to execute a public deed of sale.
of confidence obtains or holds the legal right to property
which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to *Express trust and resulting trust trustee cannot acquire
hold. by prescription a property entrusted to him unless he
repudiates a trust. This is because in an express trust, the
As previously stated, the rule that a trustee cannot, by
possession of a trustee is not adverse, therefore, he does
prescription, acquire ownership over property entrusted
not acquire by prescription the property. The burden of
to him until and unless he repudiates the trust, applies to
proving the existence of trust is on the party asserting it.
express trusts and resulting implied trusts. However, in
constructive implied trusts, prescription may supervene In this case, canezo failed to provide clear and
even if the trustee does not repudiate the relationship. satisfactorily proof of its existence. Elements:
Necessarily, repudiation of the said trust is not a condition
precedent to the running of the prescriptive period. A (1) trustor who executes the instrument creating the trust;
constructive trust, unlike an express trust, does not
emanate from, or generate a fiduciary relation. While in an (2) a trustee who is the person expressly designated to
express trust, a beneficiary and a trustee are linked by carry out the trust;
confidential or fiduciary relations in a constructive trust,
(3) the trust res consisting of duly identified and definite
there is neither a promise nor any fiduciary relation to
real property; and (
speak of and the so-called trustee neither accepts any
trust nor intends holding the property for the beneficiary.
4)beneficiaries whose identity must be clear.
The relation of trustee and cestui que trust does not in fact
exist, and the holding of a constructive trust is for the On the other hand, Constructive trust is one created not
trustee himself, and therefore, at all times adverse. by any word, either expressly or impliedly, evincing a
direct intention to create trust, but one which arises in
order to satisfy the demands of justice. There is neither a
promise nor any fiduciary relation to speak of, no one
accepts any trust nor tends holding the property for a
beneficiary. In here, after the death of the father, rojas has
no right to retain possession of the property. At such
point, a constructive trust would be created over the
property by operation of law. Constructive trust may be
supervened by prescription if the trustee does not
repudiate the relationship.
As a rule, the burden of proving the existence of a trust is
on the party asserting its existence, and such proof must
be clear and satisfactorily show the existence of the trust
and its elements. While implied trusts may be proved by
oral evidence, the evidence must be trustworthy and
received by the courts with extreme caution and should
not be made to rest on loose, equivocal or indefinite
declarations. Trustworthy evidence is required because
oral evidence can easily be fabricated.
*The Philippine Trust Company held the legal title to the
properties of the Mindoro Sugar Company to protect the
bond holders. So far as the Philippine Trust Company was
concerned, it was not authorized to manage the affairs of
the Mindoro Sugar Company or to enter into contracts in
its behalf. But even if the contract had been authorized by
the trust indenture, the Philippine Trust Company in its
individual capacity would still be responsible for the
contract as there was no express stipulation that the true
estate and not the true trustee should be held liable on
the contract in question.
*The very fact that during the whole period of twenty
years, Marcelino was never called upon to make an
accounting and that at all times he considered, dealt with,
and treated the property as his own, is conclusive
evidence that he never held the title in trust for any one.
*An implied trust may be proven by oral evidence" (Ibid,
Arts. 1443 and 1457)
"No particular words are required for the creation of an
express trust, it being sufficient that a trust is clearly
intended" (Ibid, Art. 1444; Tuason de Perez vs. Caluag
96Phil. 981: Julio vs. Dalandan, L-19012, October 30, 1967,
21 SCRA 543, 546). "Express trusts are those which are
created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, by
some writing or deed, or will, or by words either expressly
or impliedly evincing an intention to create a trust" (89
C.J.S. 722).
"Implied trust are those which, without being expressed,
are deducible from the nature of the transaction as
matters of intent, or which are super Induced on the
transaction by operation of law as matters of equity,
independently of the particular intention of the parties"
(89 CJ.S. 724). They are ordinarily subdivided into resulting
and constructive trusts (89 C.J.S. 722).
"A resulting trust is broadly defined as a trust which is
raised or created by the act or construction of law, but in
its more restricted sense it is a 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 transaction, but not expressed in the
deed or instrument of conveyance"
In a more restricted sense and as contra distinguished
from a resulting trust, a constructive trust is "a trust not
created by any words, either expressly or impliedly
evincing a direct intention to create a trust, but by the
construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of
justice. It does not arise by agreement or intention but by
operation of law." (89 C.J.S. 7260727). "If a person obtains
legal title to property by fraud or concealment courts of
equity will impress upon the title a so-called constructive
trust in favor of the defrauded party." A constructive trust
is not a trust in the technical sense(Gayondato vs.
Treasurer of the P.I., 49 Phil. 244; See
Art. 1456, Civil Code).
*But in constructive trusts, the rule is that laches
constitutes a bar to actions to enforce the trust, and
repudiation is not required, unless there is concealment of
the facts giving rise to the trust.
The reason for the difference in treatment is obvious. In
express trusts, the delay of the beneficiary is directly
attributable to the trustee who undertakes to hold the
property for the former, or who linked to the beneficiary
by confidential or fiduciary relations. The trustee's
possession is therefore, not adverse to the beneficiary,
until and unless the latter is made aware that the trust has
been repudiated. But in constructive trusts (that are
imposed by law). there is neither promise nor fiduciary
relation; the so-called trustee does not recognize any trust
and has no intent to hold for the beneficiary; therefore,
the latter is not justified in delaying action to recover his
property. It is his fault if he delays; hence, he may be
estopped by his own laches.
*DOCTRINE 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 They arise from the nature of circumstances of the
consideration involved in a transaction whereby one
person thereby becomes invested with legal title but is
obligated in to hold his legal title for the benefit of
another. On the other hand, Constructive trusts are
created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy
the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment.
They arise contrary to intention against one who, by froud,
duress or abuse of confidence obtains or holds the legal
right to property which he ought not in equity and good
conscience to hold. The apparent mistake in the
adjudication of the disputed The properties to Jose
created a mere implied trust of the constructive variety in
favor of the beneficiaries of the Fideicomiso.
However, the seek reconveyance based on right to Implied
or constructive trust is not absolute. It is subject to
extinctive prescription An action for reconveyance based
on implied or constructive trust prescribes In 10 years. This
period is reckoned from the date of the issuance of the
original certificate of title or transfer certificate of title.
Since such Issuance operates as a constructive notice to
the whole world, the discovery of the fraud is deemed to
have taken place at that time.
*Furthermore, the other siblings testified that the Deed of
Donation was executed with the understanding that the
same would be divided between the Brother and the
Sister. Also, at the same time the Deed of Waiver was
signed, another Deed of Waiver was signed between
another brother and another sister, who testified. The trial
court pointed out that four parcels of land were left to be
divided among the six children.
Evidently, their parents made it a practice, for reasons of
their own, to have lands acquired by them titled in the
name of one or another of their children. Three (3) of the
four (4) parcels acquired by the parents were each placed
in the name of one of the children. For the court, the
current case was not one where an older brother is
exploiting or cheating his younger sister. On the contrary,
the evidence showed that the Brother took care of the
sister and had been quite relaxed and unworried about the
title remaining in the name of his sister alone until the
latter had gotten married and her husband began to show
what Brother thought was undue and indelicate interest in
the land.
* person in his name, whether by mistake or fraud, the
real owner being another person, impresses upon the title
so acquired the character of a constructive trust for the
real owner, which would justify an action for
reconveyance. In the action for reconveyance, the decree
of registration is respected as incontrovertible but what is
sought instead is the transfer of the property wrongfully or
erroneously registered in another's name to its rightful
owner or to one with a better right. If the registration of
the land is fraudulent, the person in whose name the land
is registered holds it as a mere trustee, and the real owner
is entitled to file an action for reconveyance of the
property.
Hence, despite the irrevocability of the Torrens titles
issued in their names and even if they are already the
registered owners under the Torrens system, petitioners
may still be compelled under the law to reconvey the
property to respondents.
* In the present case, however, the lan involved are
concededly unregistered lands; hence, there is no way by
which Margarita, during her lifetime, could be notified of
the furtive and fraudulent sales made in 1992 by Roberto
in favor of respondents, except by actual notice from
Pedro himself in August 1995. Hence, it is from that date
that prescription began to toll. The filing of the complaint
in February 1996 is well within the prescriptive period.
Finally, such delay of only six (6) months in instituting the
present action hardly suffices to justify a finding of
inexcusable delay or to create an inference that Margarita
has allowed her claim to stale by laches.
Prescription and laches, in respect of this resulting trust
relation, hardly can impair petitioner's cause of action. In
this case, it was the 1992 sale of the properties to
respondents that comprised the act of repudiation which,
however, was made known to Margarita only in 1995 but
nevertheless impelled her to institute the action in 1996 -
still well within the prescriptive period. It is settled that an
action for reconveyance based on a constructive implied
trust prescribes in 10 years likewise in accordance with
Article 1144 of the Civil Code. Yet not like in the case of a
resulting implied trust and an express trust, prescription
supervenes in a constructive implied trust even if the
trustee does not repudiate the relationship. In other
words, repudiation of said trust is not a condition
precedent to the running of the prescriptive period.
*Generally, an action for reconveyance can barred by
prescription. An action for reconveyance based on implied
or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in 10 years
from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property

However, there is an exception to this rule: when the

plaintiff is possession of the land to be reconveyed,
prescription cannot be invoke it action for reconveyance.
The action is imprescriptible so long as the land has not
passed to an innocent buyer for value. This is based on the
theory that registration proceedings cannot be used as a
shield for fraud or enriching a person at the expense of
another.

In this case, Estrella's possession was disturbed in 1983

when the NEPHEW filed a case for recovery of possession.
The RTC ruled in favour of Estrella. Estrella never lost
possession of the properties, as such, she is in a position to
file the complaint to protect her rights and clear whatever
doubts had been cast on her title by the issuance of the
TCTs in the NEPHEW's name. The circuitous sale
transaction of the properties from the NEPHEW to

Torre to Doronilla, and back again to the NEPHEW were

unusual. However, these successive transfers of title from
one hand to another could not cleanse the illegality of the
NEPHEW's act of adjudicating to himself all the disputed
properties so as to entitle him the protection of the law as
a buyer in good faith