65. Canezo v. Roxas G.R. No.

148788 November 23, 2007

Facts: Petitioner Soledad Cañezo filed a Complaint for the recovery of real property with the MTC against her
father’s second wife, respondent Concepcion Rojas. In her complaint, petitioner alleged that when she and her
husband left for Mindanao she entrusted the said land to her father, Crispulo Rojas, who took possession of, and
cultivated, the property.

The MTC ruled that plaintiff is the true and lawful owner of the land. The respondent appealed the case
to the RTC which ruled in respondent’s favor. Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider the Amended Decision but
the RTC denied the same. She then filed a petition for review with the CA, which reversed the Decision of the
RTC on grounds of laches and prescription. The CA held that the petitioner’s inaction for several years casts a
serious doubt on her claim of ownership. The CA denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, this
petition with petitioner claiming that prescription and laches are unavailing because there was an express trust
relationship between the petitioner and Crispulo Rojas and his heirs, and express trusts do not prescribe.

Issue: Is there an express trust between petitioner and his father?

Ruling: No, there’s no express trust between them.

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 evincing an intention to create a trust. As a rule, however, 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 trust; (3) the trust res, consisting of duly
identified and definite real properties; and (4) the cestui que trust, or beneficiaries whose identity must be clear.

In this case, the only evidence to support the claim that an express trust existed was the self-serving
testimony of the petitioner. An intention to create a trust cannot be inferred from the petitioner’s testimony and
the attendant facts and circumstances. The petitioner testified only to the effect that her agreement with her
father was that she will be given a share in the produce of the property. This allegation, standing alone as it
does, is inadequate to establish the existence of a trust because profit-sharing per se, does not necessarily
translate to a trust relation.

66. Go. V. Estate of the late F. de Buenaventura G.R. No. 211972 July 22, 2015

Facts: The late Felisa Tamio de Buenaventura constructed a three-storey building on her lot, called D'Lourds
Building, where she resided until her death. Felisa supposedly sold the subject property to one of her daughters,
Bella Guerrero (Bella). Bella later sold to Wilson and Peter the property, a transaction completely unknown to
Felisa's other heirs, the Bihis Family. Herein respondents, the Estate of Felisa and the Bihis Family, filed a
complaint for reconveyance and before the RTC, against Bella, et al., Wilson, Peter, and the Register of Deeds
of Quezon City, alleging that Felisa, during her lifetime, through a letter, merely entrusted the subject property
to Felimon, Sr., Bella, and Delfin, Sr. for the purpose of assisting Bella and Delfin, Sr. to obtain a loan and
mortgage from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)

The RTC found that there was an implied trust between Felisa, on the one hand,
and Bella and Felimon, Sr., on the other, created by operation of law. In its ruling, the CA upheld the RTC's
finding. Separate motions for reconsideration were all denied; hence, these petitions.

Issue: Whether a trust existed between Felisa, and Bella and Felimon, Sr., and of what kind

Ruling: Yes, there existed an express trust between them.

 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. In this case, Felisa only transferred
the title over the subject property to Bella, Delfin, Sr., and Felimon, Sr. in order to merely accommodate them
in securing a loan from the GSIS. She likewise stated clearly that she was retaining her ownership over the
subject property and articulated her wish to have her heirs share equally therein. Hence, while in the beginning,
an implied trust was merely created between Felisa, as trustor, and Bella, Delfin, Sr., and Felimon, Sr., as both
trustees and beneficiaries, the execution of the September 21, 1970 letter settled, once and for all, the nature of
the trust established between them as an express one, their true intention irrefutably extant thereon.

67. Abellana v. Ponce, G.R. No. 160488 (2004)

FACTS: On July 15, 1981, Felomina, aunt of private respondent Lucila Ponce, purchased an agricultural lot
with the intention of giving said lot to her niece, Lucila. On April 28, 1992, TCT over the subject lot was issued
in the name of Lucila. Said title, however, remained in the possession of Felomina.The relationship between
Felomina and respondent spouses Romeo and Lucila Ponce, however, turned sour. Hence, Felomina filed the
instant case for revocation of implied trust to recover legal title over the property.

The trial court decided that an implied trust existed between Felomina and Lucila, such that the latter is
merely holding the lot for the benefit of the former. Private respondent spouses appealed to the Court of
Appeals which set aside the decision of the trial court ruling that Felomina failed to prove the existence of an
implied trust and upheld respondent spouses’ ownership over the litigated lot. Felomina filed a motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, the instant petition.

Issue: Was there an implied trust between Felomina and respondent spouses?

Ruling: No, implied trust finds no application in the instant case.

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 intention of the parties. Thus, one of the recognized
exceptions to the establishment of an implied trust is where a contrary intention is proved, as in the present case.
From the testimony of Felomina herself, she wanted to give the lot to Lucila as a gift, thus, the subsequent
issuance of title in the latter’s name were the acts that would effectuate her generosity. In doing so, Felomina
evidently displayed her unequivocal intention to transfer ownership of the lot to Lucila and not merely to
constitute her as a trustee thereof.

68. Tong v. Go Tiat Kun, G.R. No. 196023 (2014)

Facts: Juan Tong purchased Lot 998 to be used for the family’s lumber business called "Juan Tong Lumber".
The title to the property was registered in the name of his eldest son, Luis, Sr. Meanwhile, on May 30, 1981,
Luis, Sr. died and the respondents, being his surviving heirs, claimed ownership over Lot 998 by succession.
Luis, Jr. then sold Lot 998-B. On August 2, 2005, the petitioners filed the instant case for claiming as
owners of Lot 998-A. After trial, the court a quo rendered its judgment ruling that Luis Sr. was a mere trustee,
and not the owner of Lot 998, and the beneficial interest over said property remained in Juan Tong and
subsequently in the Juan Tong Lumber, Inc. On appeal, the CA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
Aggrieved by the foregoing disquisition, the petitioners moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the
appellate court, hence, they filed this petition for review.
Issue: Was there an implied trust constituted over Lot 998 when Juan Tong purchased the property and
registered it in the name of Luis, Sr.?

Ruling: Yes, there was an implied trust constituted.

In this case, an implied resulting trust was created as provided under the first sentence of Article 1448
which is sometimes referred to as a purchase money resulting trust, the elements of which are: (a) an actual
payment of money, property or services, or an equivalent, constituting valuable consideration; and (b) such
consideration must be furnished by the alleged beneficiary of a resulting trust. Here, the petitioners have shown
that the two elements are present in the instantcase. Luis, Sr. was merely a trustee of Juan Tong and the
petitioners in relation to the subject property, and it was Juan Tong who provided the money for the purchase of
Lot 998 but the corresponding transfer certificate of title was placed in the name of Luis, Sr.

70. PEZA VS FERNANDEZ

FACTS: Booc et al. executed an Extrajudicial Partition, in which they declared themselves as the only
surviving heirs of the registered owners of the aforesaid lot. RTC approved the Compromise Agreement entered
into between the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) and the new registered owners of Lot namely,Booc
et al. Private respondents filed with the RTC a Complaint for Nullity of Documents, Redemption and Damages
against petitioner and Booc et al. alleging that they had been excluded from the extrajudicial settlement of the
estate. CA denied their petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not reconveyance lies even against the expropriated property.

RULING:

No.

The law recognizes the right of a person, who, by adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud,
is deprived of an estate or an interest therein. Although a review of the decree of registration is no longer
possible after the one-year period from its entry expires, still available is an equitable remedy to compel the
reconveyance of property to those who may have been wrongfully deprived of it.

Even an action for reconveyance based on an implied or a constructive trust would have already prescribed just
the same, because such action prescribes ten (10) years from the alleged fraudulent registration or date of
issuance of the certificate of title over the property. The imprescriptibility of an action for reconveyance based
on implied or constructive trust applies only when the plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust is in possession
of the property. In effect, the action for reconveyance is an action to quiet the property title, which does not
prescribe.Undisputedly, private respondents are not in possession of the disputed property. In fact, they do not
even claim to be in possession of it, even if to do so would enable them to justify the imprecriptibility of their
action.

Hence, private respondents’ action to recover the subject property from the government cannot be maintained,
not only because of the prescription of the action, but on account of the protection given to innocent purchasers
for value granted under our land registration laws. They may sue for damages their co-heirs who have allegedly
perpetrated fraud in a case pending before the RTC. The right and the extent of damages to be awarded to
private respondents shall be determined by the trial court, subject to the evidence duly established during the
proceedings.